Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis

by Greg L. Bahnsen

In this volume, Bahnsen has gathered the primary passages on apologetics from the vast body of works by Cornelius Van Til, arranged them topically, and added incisive commentary and analysis. The result is a carefully organized digest of all that Van Til taught about apologetics with running exposition by Bahnsen.

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

800 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 1998

About the author

Greg L. Bahnsen was an influential Calvinist Christian philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.

Reviews

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

In "Van Til's Apologetic," Bahnsen presents Van Til's method, summarizes his work, and answers his critics. This work is not for the faint of heart nor the under-read. This is a difficult work to read through and requires patience and some previous experience studying philosophy. To Bahnsen's credit, he's much easier to understand than Van Til.

I trust there are other more introductory works on Van Til's apologetics, but I started here. I don't recommend that path for any but the most adventurous and persistent. That being said, those set on understanding the method will do best to start here, rather than dive right into Van Til unaided.

Van Til's apologetic, in short, is a consistently Calvinistic apologetic method that presupposes the Christian God rather than using autonomous human reason to establish the truthfulness of Scripture or the existence of the Christian God. In practice this means that the apologist's task is to argue that it is only by presupposing the existence of the Christian God that anything can be understood rationally--that the world coheres, that man may use his reason consistently within his worldview.

Without presupposing the Christian God, all is irrational. There is no unifying principle. The particular and the universal are never brought together. We wander in meaninglessness and irrationality.

The autonomous apologist counters that we can use common ground between believer and unbeliever. We can use our reason and intuit things through our minds or through our senses. But Van Til counters man's reason has been corrupted and is blinded by sin.

The autonomous apologist replies that if we can demonstrate the theistic worldview better describes the world we inhabit, or that Christ did truly rise from the dead, that we can prove God. But Van Til shows that to begin on common ground with the unbeliever is to surrender the argument--making man the reference point. Attempting to argue on a neutral basis does not challenge the unbeliever, instead it allows the unbeliever to maintain his position that God's existence must accord to his reason. Such a God could only exist within the constraints of the autonomous mind. This is not, nor could be, the Christian God.

Instead, Van Til argues that all men already know God--as Calvin argues in his "Institutes"our self knowledge is predicated on our knowledge of God. Man is made in the image of God and all knowledge comes through this relationship. Man suppresses the knowledge of God in unrighteousness and becomes a covenant-breaker.

The apologist may use reason to reach the unbeliever, but may never encourage the unbeliever's autonomous reasoning. The Christian apologist must presuppose the Christian God, demonstrate that only through the existence of the Christian God does the world cohere and is reasoning possible.

The apologist attacks the unbeliever's presuppositions and shows that their worldview does not have a basis for reasoning, that it is impossible for him to prove anything. Van Til argues that anti-theism presupposes theism. The anti-theist can only argue against the existence of God by being an inconsistent anti-theist--that is presupposing their opponents worldview. Thus anti-theism is irrational and self-defeating.

Once one understands presuppositional apologetics, one understands that it is the only biblical grounding for apologetics. God, and the Bible, are self-attesting. As Van Til says, "Unless we are larger than God we cannot reason about him any other way, than by a transcendental or circular argument."

[Ethan McCarter · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you want a comprehensive, in-depth understanding of Van Til's thought, then this is the premier book from Bahnsen's understanding. He takes issue with Frame's interpretation of Van Til, addressing it at several points in the book, and issues rebuttals toward his understanding there. Granted, Bahnsen has a "take no prisoners" kind of attitude that is revealed throughout the book; primarily in his writing portions and footnotes. His way of doing that is kind of unnerving and comes off as brutish at times. It is apparent that he really believed that Van Til is the bringer of the "Copernican Revolution" in apologetical methodology. On a personal note, it's further solidified my stance as a Classical Reformed thinker along with the Reformed Scholastic tradition; but, it does give a better understanding of Van Til.
Negatively, the book repeats itself over and over again; almost annoyingly so at times. Not to mention that Bahnsen's typical parry against criticism is "you've misunderstood Van Til." True, that is sometimes the case, but not every instance. I'd recommend this book for one who wants to understand Van Til, understand what Presuppositionalism teaches, and how it deals with objections to it. It may not be enough to convince one of its system, but it is the comprehensive view of the methodology.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very important contribution to the apologetics of Cornelius Van Til.

Bahnsen does a great service by including many hard/impossible to find apologetical insights penned by Van Til in defense of presuppositional appologetics, or in response to her critics. He also does a good job in setting forth a comprehensive analysis of the apologetics of Van Til.

Of course, Bahnsen is a sympathetic, and hardly critical, supporter of Van Til. You will do well to balance this book with many of John Frame's on the same subject.

For the most part Bahnsen offers successful responses to many objections and misunderstandings of Van Tillian apoloegtics. But, and perhaps most importantly, he does not successfully defend the TAG against the most powerful types of objections that have been launched against it (mainly by the guys from the Van Til list, Anderson, Byron, Choi, Sudduth, and Welty).

Nevertheless, this book is a must have for the Reformed presuppositional apologist. And so that is why I gave it 5 *'s. I do not hasten to add, though, that the presuppositionalist must supplement this work with specific books on epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. If not, then presuppositionalism will fade away into obscurity. Presuppositionalists will fail to be philosophically and apologetically relevant.

[Tom Carpenter]

Foundational book for Christianity, apologetics, and philosophy. A must read.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN “ANTHOLOGY WITH RUNNING COMMENTARY” BY VAN TIL’S MOST POPULAR DISCIPLE

Greg L. Bahnsen (1948-1995) was a Calvinist philosopher, apologist, Christian Reconstructionist, and skilled debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.

The Foreword to this 1998 book explains, “Some years before his death (in 1987), Dr. Van Til asked several colleagues and friends to watch over the legacy left by his writings… The idea for this reader came from the late Greg Bahnsen himself… Dr. Bahnsen’s busy schedule and difficult health delayed the book’s appearance, but we are grateful that he was able to complete the manuscript shortly before his untimely death in December 1995.”

Bahnsen wrote in the Preface, “A need exists… for a volume that, in a supportive fashion, condenses, arranges, and clarifies the wide range of Van Til’s writings that touch on apologetics… My aim is to expound the presuppositional method of defending the Christian faith by highlighting and explaining the distinctives of Van Til’s thought, providing carefully chosen selections from his body of writings, and taking opportunity to correct certain criticisms that have been voiced. This book, then, is something of an anthology with running commentary. My hope is to make presuppositionalism readily understandable to readers who want an introductory exposure to Van Til in his own words and who are not especially trained in philosophy, but who are willing to read and reflect … at more than an elementary level.” (Pg. xxi-xxii)

But he also acknowledged in the Preface, “Van Til authored a vast amount of material… Nevertheless, no particular publication expounds the essentials of his presuppositional method in one place systematically, pointedly, and with topical clarity. Even his key book, [[ASIN:0875526446 The Defense of the Faith]], is at many points a compilation of segments of previous syllabi and articles, arranged in a crisscross pattern of topics, rather than a systematic and balanced unfolding of his apologetical approach in a discursive, practical, and readily outlined fashion. Some of the issues covered in it only weakly support the central purpose of the book… while other especially helpful and pertinent discussions are not included… The best self-contained summary of his view is [[ASIN:0875524907 My Credo]]… It is so compact, however, that one must already be familiar with Van Til’s other works to interpret and apply it well… The second obstacle that readers encounter is Van Til’s style of writing… His surveys and summaries of positions or period of thought could meander before reaching trenchant insights… it is disappointing to find a book entitled 'A Christian Theory of Knowledge' not working through the standard questions pertaining to the nature of knowledge…” (Pg. xix-xx)

Bahnsen summarizes, “It has been the further genius of Van Til’s approach to recognize that an epistemologically self-conscious method of defending the faith… constitutes the strongest intellectual challenge that can be directed to the thinking of the unbeliever. God’s revelation is… the only philosophically sound foundation for any reasoning whatsoever… Van Til’s presuppositional defense of the faith mounts a philosophical offense against the position and reasoning of the non-Christian… The unbeliever attempts to enlist logic, science, and morality in his debate against the truth of Christianity. Van Til’s apologetic answers these attempts by arguing that only the truth of Christianity can rescue the meaningfulness and cogency of logic, science, and morality. The presuppositional challenge to the unbeliever is guided by the premise that only the Christian worldview provides the philosophical preconditions necessary for man’s reasoning and knowledge… This is what is meant by a ‘transcendental’ defense of Christianity. Upon analysis, all truth drives one to Christ… Any position contrary to the Christian one, therefore, must be seen as philosophically impossible… He challenges the philosophical adequacy of the unbeliever’s worldview, showing how it does not provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of knowledge and morality. His case for Christianity, then, argues from the impossibility of the contrary.” (Pg 4-7)

He explains, “Van Til taught that Scripture must ‘identify itself.’ There are opinions and standards of assessment outside the Bible that might be used … But the standard that the Christian applies is the testimony of the Bible about itself; its character and purpose are believed on its own attestation (or witness)---being ‘self-attesting.’ Therefore, Scripture has final authority in the reasoning of the believer.” (Pg. 89)

He observes, “Does this mean that for Van Til unbelievers know nothing whatsoever and cannot make any useful contribution to culture? Not at all. It means that the would-be autonomous man can never give an intelligible, coherent, or meaningful ACCOUNT of how he is able to know anything or accomplish anything culturally… But because the unbeliever is not actually what he thinks he is… he can within God’s world, as a creature made in God’s image, make intellectual and cultural progress… Even the achievements of the non-Christian contribute to the Christian’s apologetic, therefore, since such things would be unintelligible apart from the explanation of them which the Christian worldview can offer.” (Pg. 113-114)

He states, “Christians and non-Christians… have an epistemological disagreement with each other. Christians claim that all men know God---that is, they believe important truths about the Creator and directly apprehend evidence that justifies those beliefs. Christians further claim that God as the Redeemer has given a saving and self-attesting revelation of Himself in the Scriptures, which is necessary to restore fallen man’s rebellious mind and wayward reasoning. Faith is thus the PREREQUISITE for a genuinely rational understanding of anything. This is the evidence for the previous claims that men directly grasp the God-given evidence in nature for the Creator, and in Scripture for the Redeemer.” (Pg. 272) Later, he adds, “As Van Til liked to quip: unbelievers can very well count, but they cannot ‘account for counting.’ When it comes to knowing things, then, the unbeliever is an epistemological failure; he has no adequate theory, or philosophy, or worldview that makes his knowing intelligible.” (Pg. 407)

He argues, “The unregenerate man suppresses the truth of God’s revelation, not only as it comes to him through the natural order, but also as it comes to him through the gospel. According to Van Til, Scripture carries self-attesting authority and power (proof within itself), but the unbeliever does not wish to deal with the God who is revealed in it. Accordingly, he suppresses the message of Scripture, just as he suppresses the message of nature and conscience.” (Pg. 443)

He points out, “Kant proposed to engage in ‘transcendental’ analysis, which asks what the preconditions are for the intelligibility of human experience. Under what conditions is it possible, or what would also need to be true in order for it to be possible, to make sense of one’s experience in the world? To seek the transcendental conditions for knowing is to ask what is presupposed by any intelligible experience whatsoever. This kind of analysis takes us beyond the methods of rationalism and empiricism to see what is presupposed by them both.” (Pg. 499)

Later, he adds, “it is important to recall that Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic does not argue that unbelievers in fact do not count, reason, learn, communicate, engage in science, explain, see, purpose and order, etc. Because they psychologically know God, they are both concerned about the issues listed above and are to some extent successful in negotiating or applying them to understand the world and their personal experiences. The issue is not what unbelievers can do intellectually, but whether they can give an account of it (epistemologically) within their worldview… when the would-be autonomous man is put at the center of the knowing process, and his presuppositions are consistently driven to their logical outcome, he ultimately slips into subjectivism and skepticism… Only Christianity can account for or make sense of the intellectual accomplishments of the unbeliever.” (Pg. 514-515)

He says, “As Van Til labored to teach throughout his career… there simply is not presupposition-free and neutral to approach reasoning, especially reasoning about the fundamental and philosophically momentous issues of God’s existence and revelation. To formulate proofs for God that assume otherwise is not only foolish and futile, from a philosophical perspective, but also unfaithful to the Lord. Reasoning is a God-given gift to man, but it does not grant to him any independent authority. The Christian concept of God takes Him to be the highest and absolute authority, even over man’s reasoning; such a God COULD NOT be proved to exist by some other standard… That would be to assume the contrary of what you are seeking to prove.” (Pg. 614)

He suggests, “The unbeliever may be unwilling to resort to a ‘theological rationale’ to justify the foundational belief (the causal principle) that is necessary to the rationality of science, but it is the only rational alternative … The presuppositional cosmological argument points out that unbelief must destroy rationality in order to save it. The unbelieving worldview cannot provide a cogent reason for what we necessarily assume in all of our reasoning. Thus, it is entirely unreasonable not to believe in God.” (Pg. 619)

Having read most of Van Til’s books, and almost despaired of finding a systematic statement of his apologetic position in any of them, I was delighted with Bahnsen’s enormously helpful book---which is vastly illuminating for Van Til’s work, but also very helpful for explaining Bahnsen’s own approach. It will be “must reading” for anyone seriously studying Van Til, or Presupposition/Transcendental Apologetics.

[Joshua Finch]

The negative: about 1/7th at least is Calvinist casuistry. 2/7ths is Van Til selections saying less clearly or more poetically what Bahnsen just clarified. Another 2/7ths is repetition of rather obscure things. If you are the type to read something from cover to cover this will be a slog, because this estimated 5/7ths of a 733 page book is roughly 523 pages. Chapter 8 itself is exemplary in that it is the size of a book, clocking in at 167 pages, and only two subsections in there on classical proofs and evidentialist arguments seemed worth it to me.

Positively speaking, 2/7ths are very worth it. That would be solidly chapters 3, 7, and 5; and I advise reading them in that order. There are sections outside those of course, for example the masterpiece expose of how agnosticism is the same as atheism in the third section of chapter 2, so message me if you want to know these exceptions. But overall I recommend taking these selections, and re-framing them in a wider syllabus or collection of works, perhaps to be reworked for your own purposes. This is the only Bahnsen or Van Til I've read, so I can only refer outside to Dr. Jason Lisle's Ultimate Proof for something much more simple and brief.

Also I can't believe so many people mis-understand this form of proof. Our proof is not a deduction from axioms in just any sense. It is a valid deduction from premises that are necessarily true, since when you deny them you must affirm them by denying them. That is why they are called "transcendental" (because they are necessary preconditions for even talking and reasoning about these things) or "retorsive" (because the denial is turned back upon itself, cancelling itself out).

Our so called 'circle' of reasoning is really more of a bridge between theology and philosophy. [The circle where "God exists" is justified by "We can know anything at all" and "We can know anything at all" is justified by "God exists" - but also by the self-contradiction of denying that we can know anything.] It's a two-way bridge and each direction means something different (God's existence and only it explains our ability to know, but our ability to know does not explain God's existence, rather it testifies to it). Such bridging must happen at the limit conditions of thought. We leave the ground by the bridge and yet we don't leave the ground, since the bridge is a ground. We have to presuppose thinking can happen successfully when we think and talk about it. The question is then only whether we are self-contradictory or not, whether it is a valid, uniquely positively explaining and self-consistent bridge. So when we ask 'Can we successfully use our sense perception?' and 'How do you know?' The atheist just re-insists in various ways that we can do this successfully, just because. The Christian however, has an answer. The unbeliever must resort to a *fallacy* of circularity, which is essentially non-informative, while our form of circle, a meta-philosophical bridge, is very informative, on all accounts or positive criteria for theoretical fitness (explanatory power, coherence between fields, determinateness of injunctions). Furthermore our theism does not require this bridge, but is also the land across the river or bay from the land of philosophy so to speak, because it is self-evident when taken on its own (without reference to an impossible contrary) in the sense that its Referent explains Himself and theism justifies itself, in a way that no other belief or thing does. The concept of God is a unique concept in this way, just like the Christian concept of personhood (as opposed to nature) or love (as opposed to a natural affection, or an unfeeling faith or loyalty) is unique, showing that all other worldviews are simply missing this irreplaceable information, and their proponents simply ignore or deny that something is missing. The concept of a unicorn or centaur is just an admixture of concepts - nothing is really irreducibly new here, and when posited, 'unicorns exist' doesn't help explain or solve anything which we expect a theory to do. Bringing these 'fantasies' up are atheist cliches, and they themselves would only require explaining, much like the atheists' infinite multiverse.

The atheist / agnostic or other Western Christians (the Roman Catholic or Arminian) is the main target of the book. There is only brief mention of other religious worldviews like Hinduism and Islam.

One consistent refrain in this book, and an example of some hazy obscurity, is the dialectic between unity and difference, abstraction and particularity (similar to equality and liberty). I am more from an analytic background and missed my mind-altering injection of Hegel, so I am not too clear on how it is, that relative to the autonomous finite mind, the principle of unity must become absolutized and falsify the principle of difference, or vice versa. Because I don't see why you can't just assert that there is a harmonious both-and between them. I understand that this has its own problem of being ad hoc for the atheist, but this wasn't addressed as far as I recall (it took a while to read this book - separated into different times).

I myself endorse MMA, so to speak, or a sequential pluralism, so a form of presuppositionalism placed at a certain context or stage of a sequence of dialogue. This is because I have a different, Eastern Orthodox theology than Bahnsen. Vis-a-vis the strange complexity or admixture of the unbelievers mindset, I don't think it is always best seen on a coloring model, where rose-colored glasses color everything in the wearer's vision. In principle it is like that, but we are talking about persons not systems and principles. I think the relevant model of the psyche is more like a palimpsest, where the original divine image is dimmed, blurred, or erased, moved around (which makes it a bit like a lego structure too) and new alien marks are written over them or annexed to them. The person can switch between the two in different contexts, e.g. atheist denial when triggered, passionate, or calm reflection on necessary preconditions, or questioning very far back, distal preconditions in a serious crisis, necessary preconditions that open beyond the horizon of our thought and make our thought possible. So while I agree that there is no common ground or neutrality in terms of systems of philosophy or theory (especially in political theory, since I deny church-state separation as one ought to from the logical consequence of the falsehood of humanist foundationalism behind neutrality - we must pick a single worldview and the Modern republics' is a humanist, gnostic one), I think there is common ground psychologically speaking with particular interlocutors. This is because they can have a part of the divine image, some intuition about the preconditions for the laws of thought let's say, dimmed and ignored, but they may not necessarily be resistant to this changing, the question about thought's preconditions re-brightening that area of theory as they might easily light them up for children, and they may not necessarily defensively invoke an alien superimposition, for example, that the laws are just there, floating in the void, or mere descriptors.

So suffice it to say I don't believe conversion happens in such a total way, out of "total depravity," but rather by degrees of zeal and seriousness about searching, although the direction the heart is in can go in only one of two totally opposite directions. So maybe it is authoritarian (theocratic) in the end, but I disagree with their Calvinist, pre-determinist totalitarianism. I also have a different sense of method than that of ex-priest Joshua Schooping who tried to do a closer integration of presupp and orthodoxy. So for potential inquirers (towards Christianity at any level), I would suggest making positive statements of belief, of the closest, relevant, positive alternative to their view, since they may be open to questioning. For genuine, actual inquirers I would suggest going further and refuting that opposing view by indirect proof, since at this point they seem open to accepting a new answer. For catechumens and for inquirers at the last stage, the *epistemic transcendental* stage, from autonomous epistemology prior to theonomous, revelation-based epistemology, that is, I would suggest holistic, worldview comparison and analysis. A person in the first two contexts is bound to double down on their assumptions when you fly into this end-stage too fast. However in debates (the fourth context), where theism, your conclusion, is disclosed and on the line, of course it should go to whole system comparison and internal critique, because the aim is not necessarily evangelizing or converting the debate opponent, but using them to expose their view to the audience. However I am not so sure these debates are fruitful anymore, seeing how far away our culture is. Therefore I would actually recommend debates by Christians who are 'undercover' as more consistent forms of atheist (like Humean or Pyrrhonian skeptics) or positively as more coherent worldviews like Neo-Platonists (who can absolutely mow down evolutionists and materialists). Getting people closer does not mean they will convert, in fact it might make them worse, but I would rather buy the person time and remove a tumor that will regrow, than not do anything at all simply because I cannot remove it by the roots.

[Mark Trigsted · Rating 3 out of 5]

Required reading in Apologetics Class at RTS (Dallas). On the Final I was asked If I had actually read it... Quantity and Quality... I answered 100% / 80% and I was generous on the 80%. Here’s my problem... I’m a Van Tilian for sure going into the course and coming out of it. But I just don’t like Bahnsen!! OK I said it!! He’s brilliant, and died to young, no doubt... But he writes with an underlining edge that to me is saying, “I’m right - I’m smart - and you are not me” - Perhaps this isn’t or wasn’t his intent, but I have trouble separating him from his “Theonomy” and like attitudes that I have experienced from his followers... NOT ALL FOR SURE!!!! No criticism with any content... The guy knew his stuff!!!!

[JonM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Van Til is boring to study, but Bahnsen makes it look easy

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Greg L. Bahnsen (1948-1995) was Scholar-in Residence at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies in Irvine. Bahnsen was a distinguished scholar and a well-known Reformed apologist and debater. Bahnsen is the author of numerous books, including By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today and Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Still, one of Bahnsen's most coveted and useful works remains Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis.

Van Til's Apologetic is a substantial 800-page volume aimed at promoting an understanding of the apologetic output of Cornelius Van Til. Bahnsen has brought together principal apologetic passages from Van Til's massive body of work, organized them topically, and added keen and insightful comments throughout. The result is a careful and comprehensive examination of Van Til's apologetic methodology from one of the foremost proponents of Van Til's presuppositional approach to the task of Christian apologetics.

The thematic organization of the book offers readers an entryway with various side streets to explore. There are nine main sections with several subdivisions: (1) An Introduction to Van Til's Apologetic, (2) The Task of Apologetics, (3) A Simple Summary and Illustration, (4) The Epistemological Side of Apologetics, (5) The Apologetical Side of Epistemology, (6) The Psychological Complexities of Unbelief, (7) The Presuppositional Apologetical Argument, (8) Comparison and Criticism of Apologetic Methods, and (9) Concluding Summary: How to Defend the Faith.

Bahnsen rightly identifies a number of obstacles readers generally encounter when standing before the mountain of Van Til's apologetic worldview. Two are worth noting here. First, the sheer size of Van Til's literary output makes it difficult for the average reader to engage. Second, much of Van Til's work presupposes a certain understanding of various philosophical and theological concepts and can be difficult for some readers. Where Bahnsen offers assistance is gathering the essential portions of Van Til's work and providing necessary commentary to help readers not only understand but apply Van Til's apologetic methodology.

Bahnsen's choice of Van Til material is calculated and intentionally displayed. He really shows himself to be acquainted, not only with Van Til but his apologetics. Moreover, Bahnsen's notes on Van Til's work is unparalleled. It is both helpful and insightful. I've tried to read Van Til on several occasions. It's not impossible. But, reading Van Til next to Bahnsen was truly enjoyable. For the sake of objective and critical analysis of his methodology, It would have been beneficial to have interaction with someone who didn't fancy everything about Van Til. But, the scope of the book was to orient readers to Van Til's apologetic, and Bahnsen has certainly accomplished this goal with flying colors.

Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis by Greg L. Bahnsen is an essential volume for those looking to engage the thought, theology, and apologetic of Cornelius Van Til. It's a well-written and clearly presented volume that demonstrates a keen understand of one of the most important Reformed thinkers of the past hundred years. Bahnsen is encyclopedic and anyone serious about trying to understand Van Til will need this book on their shelf. It's both Bahnsen's best book and the best work on Van Til's apologetic, and comes highly recommended!

[TJ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am very thankful for this book. It has helped to strengthen my understanding of how to defend the faith in a way that is more biblical, but more than that, it has helped me to learn how to think more consistently as a Christian. This book is all about worldviews and presuppositions, which are key to any apologetic discussion with unbelievers. We must get down to ultimate authorities and foundational beliefs, which are the starting point for how we interpret everything in life. The question posed to the unbeliever is: does your ultimate authority/foundation provide the preconditions required for reality to be what it is?

This is a big book, so it is hard to sum it up, but one of the main takeaways is that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that makes any sense out of reality (things like intelligibility, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and morality). No other worldview offers any reasonable explanation for these crucial concepts. In fact, since men are made in the image of God, they are presupposing these concepts (which only the Christian worldview can account for) in some internal, automatic sense - but suppress the truth in unrighteousness that God is the backing of it all, and use all their fallen mind and faculties to try and convince themselves and others of this falsehood.

One exhortation from Van Til and Bahnsen is that there is no neutrality in any aspect of epistemology, and hence, Christians must not strive to be neutral, as if that were even possible. There are no brute facts, but rather, all facts are related to one another because all facts are God's facts. Since all facts belong to God, he is the originator of their meaning, which means that if our interpretation doesn't match up with his, we are in error. The unbeliever is incapable of interpreting any fact of reality correctly, since his starting point is not God, but himself. When man depends on his own autonomy when it comes to knowledge, he will never come to the right interpretation of any fact he may realize. This defines every unbeliever.

I couldn't recommend this book more. It is a big book, but it is worth your time.

[Stephen Townley · Rating 2 out of 5]

My feelings on this book are pretty ambivalent. On the one hand, it was the gift from a dear friend in response to a conversation we had about our philosophical underpinnings. And perhaps that fact more than any other pushed my to read it and try to thoroughly understand its arguments. And I can honestly say I learned a lot. And I feel like I have a pretty good handle on the apologetic approach. That being said I dont think this is a great book. Van Til himself was famously unclear and unsystematic in the formulation of his apologetics, and this book really suffers because of that. Bahnsens goal was to try to be clear and systematic while referring as much to Van Til as possible and I feel like it was a real failure. The presuppositional argument was not very well articulated and there was endless repetitive meanderings which were never assembled into anything clear. I had to do a lot of research outside the book, to even sort of construct some semblance. Secondly, there was little if any defense against counterarguments that I wanted explanation for. Granted the author couldn't have known what mine were specifically, its just there was a lack generally. I have extensive notes in the book which elaborate my counterarguments, suffice it to say, I am largely unconvinced of the pressupositional position, but plan to research more contemporary formulations to see if they address any of the fundamental flaws I see in the VanTil/Bahnsen formulation.

[Ashton E. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very long book. It definitely opened my perspective to theology being Christian philosophy and rationality flowing out from faith rather than proceeding it. If something is deemed irrational it must be deemed so by some standard. What is that standard? Is that standard rational? How can one know? It ends up becoming an infinite chain of asking if something is rational based some other standard higher than it. Thus, if epistemology is made the foundation (what is rational) it is an infinite chain without end. But if metaphysics (faith / what is believed about reality) is made the foundation then what is or isn't rational comes into view as being whatever falls outside the realm of what the nature of reality is.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a pleasure to read fluent and easy understandable book on presuppositionnal apologetics (contrary to some of Van Til's books). I would say that it is even clearer than Frame's "CVT an analysis of his thought" though I prefer the last plan. With this book, Van Til's thought become to a great extent very accessible and powerfull. If you doesn't have time and/or money, buy this book because the most important texts of Van Til are all gathered in this one. This book in fact is a commentary (Van Til's books extracts with footnotes which can sometimes be quite large) and notes of Bahnsen himself (independant of Van Til's texts).

[Tony Ross II · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Greg Bahnsen goes through the works of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, seeking to explain them to those unfamiliar with his philosophical methodology. A few interesting notes from this work are as follows:

- Dr. Greg Bahnsen admitted that Van Til introduced new categories into apologetics (analogical)
- Dr. Greg Bahnsen stated that Van Til assumed his readers were already familiar with his pet topic, which caused a mass misunderstanding among amateur readers.

Overall, I think that Dr. Greg Bahnsen did a great job explaining the thought of Dr. Cornelius Van Til. This is a useful volume, whether you subscribe to presuppositional apologetics or not.

[Daniel Arter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Van Til has a reputation for being difficult to understand and hard to read. There are multiple reasons for this, but it doesn’t make his work any less valuable.

Bahnsen in Van Til’s Apologetic systematizes much of Van Til’s writings to provide a comprehensive understanding of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. Regardless of your own apologetic disposition, this book is worth reading simply to understand what the father of presuppositional apologetics actually taught and believed.

Bahnsen’s insight, as a student of Van Til, makes Van Til much easier to understand in a primer-like fashion.

Well worth the read—even if you disagree.

[Tony Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Bahnsen goes through the works of Dr. Van Til and seeks to explain them to those unfamiliar with philosophy. A few interesting notes:
- Bahnsen admits Van Til introduced new categories (his language when referring to apologetics was odd, like analogical)
- Bahnsen says that Van Til assumed his readers were already familiar with his topic, which did his readers a disservice and caused mass misunderstanding.
Overall, I think Bahnsen did a good job explaining the thought of Van Til. Regardless if you believe in a presuppsitional apologetic method or not.

[Jesus Salgado · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I first bought this book I didn’t think I would ever read it completely, A year later I finished this almost 800-page treasure. Yes, I said treasure, Greg Bahnsen takes on the most brilliant apologist and simply but beautifully makes him very easy to understand. Each page is a breath of fresh air and is fuel for the soul. In this masterpiece you will not be disappointed, you will be challenged, equipped, and satisfied with the work the author does in attempting to make light of the great work of VanTil.

[Kevin Fulton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good, philosophically rich book that provides in-depth quotations and commentaries of Van Til's work. Neither Van Til nor Bahnsen are the most accessible writers, so it takes effort to read, but that effort is well worth it.
It shows that many of the stereotypes about his apologetic method are not reflective of reality. Though I do think I agree with John Frame's critique in that his interpretation of others' apologetics methods is not the most charitable.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This rather large work gives an excellent overview of the thought and primary works of Cornelius Van Til through the guiding lens of his greatest student and interpreter, Dr. Greg Bahnsen. This is the most comprehensive work on Presuppositional thought that I have read. A must read for the student of Bahnsen and Van Til. Required reading for the Presuppositional Apologist.

[Aaron Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is definitely one of the more difficult reads I've gotten through. And sometimes I wonder if I was even understanding much of what was being said, haha. The repetitive nature of some of the concepts is not bad because Van Til's writing sometimes takes multiple readings to sink in. All in all, this work covers some incredibly important material for Christian thinking and reasoning.

[Kelli · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have very mixed feelings on this one. There are many notes and highlights on comments that I do agree with and even more on what I did not agree with. I was surprised. Like I said in my progress update- if you are Calvinist you will enjoy this more than a non-calvinist

[Christopher David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't think there is a better work on presuppositional apologetics than this, nor do I expect one to be made.

[Zack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely impressive and well written. A comprehensive distillation of Van Til’s thought. Very redundant.

[Hunter Hebenstreit · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading commentary on Van Til beats reading Van Til himself any day. Bahnsen presents the presuppositional method of Van Til in a clear way.

[Andrew Fendrich · Rating 4 out of 5]

The definitive work on Presuppositional Apologetics. Lots to chew through. Read for seminary.

[M Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite a tome, but certainly a must-read if one is a committed presupper with an intellectual intention towards breadth of understanding.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

I probably should have reviewed this book several years ago. I was a hard-core presuppositionalist then. In many ways I knew the arguments much better. On the other hand, I now have some distance to the issues and while I may not be as fluid in the argumentation, hopefully I am not as blind to the weaknesses, either.

While I now disagree with much of Bahnsen’s thought, he is truly the master. I stand in awe of him. And Bahnsen would be the first to approve of a former acolyte going beyond Bahnsen’s thought even if it means disagree strongly at points, rather than slavishly repeating Bahnsen’s words.

Outline of the Presuppositional style of argument
Most disagreements in philosophy and theology are examples of two schools arguing across epistemological frameworks. In order to have a more effective style of argument, one must stand within the other’s framework, and from the other’s presuppositions, show that framework to be faulty (e.g., an internal critique).

Critique
I don’t think Bahnsen’s project fails because of the weaknesses I am about to show. Rather, I think Bahnsen’s arguments at certain points, if proven faulty, show the weaknesses in certain points of modern Protestant apologetics but not in presuppositional reasoning, per se. First of all is Bahnsen’s famous “transcendental argument for the existence of God” (TAG). Transcendental argumentation seeks to show the “preconditions for intelligibility.” In order for something to be true, what are the conditions of knowledge that make it true. For Bahnsen, the proof of the Christian God is the impossibility of the contrary—without the Christian God you can’t prove anything. At this point in the argument Bahnsen then shows how rationalism, empiricism, and other “isms” fail to live up to reason. On the other hand, the Christian faith does demonstrate that it meets the preconditions of intelligibility. Ergo, Christianity.

Response: While it is true that the unbelieving systems fail, that does not in itself prove Christianity. Assuming that it does prove Christianity, why can’t it also prove a specific form of Christianity? In many ways, the Roman Catholic can use the same argument for papal infallibility saying, “If you don’t presuppose the magisterium’s interpretation, you can’t prove/know any text of the Bible.” Indeed. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Second criticism: Bahnsen is to be applauded for basing his apologetics from the Bible. Indeed, in listening to his lectures one is moved to a warm fervor hearing Bahnsen quote Scripture. And to be honest, Bahnsen’s following argument on “ultimate commitments” needs to be taken more seriously by his detractors. I don’t think they fully understand how strong this argument is. Bahnsen says that you can only prove your highest authority by your highest authority. Of course, this is circular reasoning but all forms of ultimate commitments are circular. If you go beyond your highest authority to prove your highest authority, then you have a new highest authority.

But here’s the problem for Bahnsen: the canon of Scripture cannot be proved by Scripture alone. Bahnsen is used to appealing to the Bible’s “self-attestation” to prove the Bible. That’s fair enough. But the Bible is relatively silent about what books go into the Bible. In order to prove the Protestant canon the Protestant must go beyond Scripture (usually to history).

Bahnsen is not wrong for this type of reasoning: indeed, if one takes the Russian idea of “sobornopravna” and places the ultimate authority (e.g., the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church) within the life of the Church, one has a much better argument.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

An essential read if you want to understand Van Til's presuppositional apologetic, a unique, refreshing, faithful, and sound approach to evangelism. However, instead of reading straight through like I did, I would recommend reading the opening chapters and then 9th chapter which is an outline and summary of Van Til's thought and then using the book as a reference, picking up on those reading sections that most interest you. If you read it from cover to cover it will be incredibly repetitive as the same things are said in different ways and cited from different parts of Van Til's works and often overlap each other, the book is not laid out in a dialectic form, it just categorizes various writings and comments on them. So, after reading it, I think Bahnsen intended it to be browsed, referenced, and cross reference rather than read straight through.

[Craig French · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an incredibly helpful collection giving the reader a better grasp of Van Til's thought. While I'm not a rabidly convinced "Van Tillian", he offers some very helpful insights. The careful reader ought to beware of buying into implicit German Idealistic categories and placing faith in this system of thought as though it really destroys all arguments. Be careful how you put into play Van Til's arguments. The average unbeliever will not understand you. An unbeliever with a philosophical background will pick it apart at points and you'll end up spending time defending Van Til instead of sharing the gospel.

[Chris Comis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bahnsen was the best at defending VT against his detractors. Not a whole lot of critiques of VT in here, but still a ton of good stuff for both the lay apologist and the die-hard. The chapter on self-deception is worth the whole book. This was B's little baby. This book was his magnum opus.