American Vision Press and Covenant Media Press have teamed up to publish a long missing manuscript of the late Greg L. Bahnsen. Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended is a helpful systematic presentation of the apologetic method first articulated by Cornelius Van Til. It is available here. I would argue that this method of defending the Christian faith is the apologetic method most consistent with the Scriptures and the Reformed confessions. That is a controversial statement, but one which I would stand by. And after reading this volume, I am all the more convinced. This is not to say that we can’t learn from other apologetic schools. But at the end of the day, what truth we learn from the classical, evidential, cumulative case, and warrantist schools finds its true home in the presuppositional way.
Bahnsen’s manuscript was thought to be long lost but was recently found to have fallen behind a filing cabinet. This book is actually only 2/3rds of the original manuscript. The final third, an evaluation of the history of western philosophy, remains incomplete and plans have been made to complete the project with additional materials by other Van Tillian presuppositionalists.
What we have in this volume involves both a positive discussion of the presuppositional method and an evaluation of three apologists who have been considered presuppositionalists in the past. Among the issues discussed in the first part of the book is the typical separation of metaphysics and epistemology. This is an unfortunate separation which is artificial at best and detrimental at worst. Additionally, God has no need of any higher authority to authenticate his Word. This affirmation is often read as fideism, but this is only possible because of the forced separation between metaphysics and epistemology.
Bahnsen’s discussion of the Creator/creature distinction and the analogical nature of human knowledge (we are to think God’s thoughts after him in a human way) would have greatly benefited from recent historical studies of the likes of Richard Muller who has reminded us of the post-Reformation Reformed Scholastic doctrine of the archetype/ectype distinction which simply is Van Tils doctrine of analogy. Such historical studies indicate denials and criticisms of Van Til’s doctrine of analogy place one outside the historical (read “biblical”) Reformed theological mainstream.
Banhsen also evaluates the three apologists Gordon Clark, Edward J. Carnell, and Francis Schaeffer. Bahnsen is not without appreciation for the work of these men, but by the end of these chapters one wonders how these men could have ever been considered presuppositional in any sense of the term. My own sense is that they held to modified forms of the classical method (this method uses rational arguments to demonstrate the existence of a “god” and then attempts empirical examination of the historical veracity of the Bible).
I conclude with the observation that the term “presuppositional” may have reached the end of its usefulness. I am one of those who thinks a better designation may be “covenantal” apologetics.   Bahnsen does not discuss this at all. But his book will be a must read for those seeking to understand presuppositionalism aright.
Can you tease out a little how you believe Bahnsen would have benefited from Muller a little more?
Benjamin
It would basically have provided a historical perspective. In other words, Van Til was articulating a doctrine which had been a part of the historical Reformed tradition and he could have called the Reformed community back to its roots. Of course, ultimately a doctrine must be based in Scriptural revelation and not merely in our historical tradition. And I believe Bahnsen’s work would benefit from some consideration of this historical context.
Benjamin
I meant to previously note that the doctrine of the archetype/ectype distinction is quite developed and fully articulated. For instance, you can read Muller in his “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1″ in particular. Also there is Sebastian Rehnmann’s “Divine Discourse” on the theological prolegomena of John Owen. Van Til’s doctrine is part and parcel of the Reformed systematic heritage.
Thanks Rev. Waddington.