No offence was intended. Rooty Hill is used as a bit of a byword for the working class western suburbs.

Hi Craig,

You’re right, I really should read the book to critically engage. But even from the review it seemed evident to me that this was the case. Roy is most obviously using evidential apologetics (in the review, he looks at the universe, the humand mind, and love among other things). Clearly evidential. Are these sufficient reasons in and of themselves to require belief in our God, the self-contained Trinity? Obviously not. Does not Aristotle use a similar methodology? Did he not arrive at a completely different god?
Evidences in and of themselves are worthless without the light of Scripture. Even the historical fact of the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is worthless without the light of Scripture.
The evidential apologetic method seeks to argue without God’s revelation of Himself. It is like trying to prove the existence of the sun by pointing a flashlight in its direction.
Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is very practical. It enables us to deconstruct other worldviews and expose their self-inconsistencies and utter folly. Positively, we invite fallen man to taste the Christian system of truth in the hope that God will give him eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is very practical. It enables us to deconstruct other worldviews and expose their self-inconsistencies and utter folly. Positively, we invite fallen man to taste the Christian system of truth in the hope that God will give him eyes to see, and ears to hear.

The theory is great. But my observation is that its not that great in practice…

Craig, who in Australia is practicing presuppositional apologetics?

Craig Schwarze - 10 October 2008 12:22 AM

Rooty Hill is used as a bit of a byword for the working class western suburbs.

I have never heard that - maybe it’s the way inner-suburbans think. Or because I’m living in ‘south west’ Sydney. BTW what is the ‘byword’ for our area ?

Regarding the term “working class”, I know what it refers to - but ( thinking logically ) does that really mean that other parts of Sydney don’t work ? Or is it only a ‘put-down’ term from those who cling to an ( English style ) class system ?

I have mostly heard ‘blue-collar’ as a term for the ‘western suburbs’.  Besides, our ‘beloved’ Prime Minister has appealed to ‘working families’ a million times in the past year - so maybe we should all amend our speech ;)

Adam David Fuller - 10 October 2008 01:23 PM

Craig, who in Australia is practicing presuppositional apologetics?

A lot of people in reformed circles, I would imagine.

I’ve listened to quite a bit presuppositional argument on the Narrow Mind podcast - http://www.unchainedradio.com/new/index.php

Gill Evans - 09 October 2008 11:58 PM

not much use for Joe Truck Driver from Rooty Hill.

..no aspersions please, Craig, those of us living at Rooty Hill are very well educated...we have even heard of van Til.
Gill.

But can you drive a truck?

no, actually.  ha, ha ha....
Gill.

Craig Schwarze - 10 October 2008 02:53 PM

Adam David Fuller - 10 October 2008 01:23 PM

Craig, who in Australia is practicing presuppositional apologetics?

A lot of people in reformed circles, I would imagine.

My apologies for such a delayed response (I’m not too fond of forums, blogs and the like).

If there are people practicing presuppostional apologetics in Australia (which I doubt), they are not raising their voices against the multitude of evidentialists who have the public spotlight. Clearly CPX and CASE are evidentialist.
Perhaps things would be different here if Van Til had paid us a visit during the course of his travels. It is a positive sign though that Moore Books have in stock some of his works. Australian apologetics is in dire need of a reformation!

On a related note, I have begun to read Roy William’s God, Actually and am at present up to the chapter concerning love.
What can I say so far? Well I am so sure and bold as to state bluntly that Roy’s god is not the God of Christianity. Roy has pointed us to a god that has created a universe that does not and cannot reveal himself clearly to his creatures so as to leave them without excuse for their disbelief. The fault for this then must lie not with man but with Roy’s god who is not powerful nor wise enough for the task. Man, according to Roy, has an excuse for his disbelief. Roy presents us with at best a finite god that presents no challenge to the non-Christian in general and the atheist in particular.

Far different is the God of Christianity, the self-contained Trinity, as revealed in the Scriptures! He has made himself clearly known to His creatures in creation so as to leave them without excuse for their disbelief. All men know this God and it is precisely because they know Him that they can rebel against Him. All men since the fall have sought to supress this knowledge of God every waking moment of their lives. Fallen man, for example, cannot even truly understand the most basic arithmatic operations, since mathematics was created by God to reflect His nature and glory! Man is dead in his sins; seeking to become wise, he became a fool. So then it is only through the blood of Christ, by the regenerating work of the Spirit that man can be reconciled to the Father and start to think aright about himself, the world, and God. It is the Christian who truly knows the facts of the universe for he brings them into their proper relation to the God who created them.

“Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilisation would be unintelligble 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. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God’s existence, I hold, is like arguing about the 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.”
- Cornelius Van Til

God gives us absolute free will.  He’ll even allow us to deny or reject Him!  There is, of course, a price to pay if we do that (because we live in God’s necessarily ordered universe which GOD, ACTUALLY will surely make clear(er) for some).  So we don’t have to pay that awful price, God does (at least) two things: He permits part of Himself to be sacrificed in payment (that’s right, God Almighty allows, for a time, his mere creations to have dominion over His Son’s earthly life (clearly not “mere” in God’s eyes if He would do this for us); and, I believe, he sends a little help in the form of people like Roy Williams to those of us who He knows need, or would benefit from, that help in finding Him.

Christians’ hubris is sad.  We are not all knowing … we don’t attain a state of complete and perfect understanding on the day we first see God … we just begin a process which our Lord will one day complete.  But some of us appear not to get this.  I believe that, as we queue into Heaven, God will spend a moment or so showing each of us the times we got it wrong, including after our acceptance of Him.  His disclosures might be about, for example, condemning another of His fishers on hearsay or commenting on a matter and later having to acknowledge that one missed or misunderstood something.  Save your keyboards … I see the splinter … I expect to hold up the queue for quite a time (I might even be shown this discourse).

I think we should try to avoid doing anything to reinforce those tending away from God or to discourage those who are trying to come to grips with awakening understanding.

I will certainly tell others about GOD, ACTUALLY and invite my family and friends to read it.  I don’t believe God is displeased by it and so have some hope that by doing so I will not further slow the queue.

If you read this Roy : On page 171, might “… He must have been the Designer or somehow empowered by the Designer …” be preferred?