As the handful of persons who follow my blog know, I have taken most of the last nine months off from blogging. I came to a point where there wasn’t anything I had to say that seemed interesting or worth my time. That has finally changed for which I am grateful. I have learned enough history (with a smattering of philosophy) that I have moved beyond the belief that Van Til’s Calvinist apologetic is not that great to believing it is dangerously wrong. I now want to blog about my conclusions and how I came to them.
This post is a general introduction to what I am going to try and accomplish with these posts. The proper academic style is for me to present my beliefs in a cold detached manner and let you decide in a cold detached manner. I have never liked that approach and I don’t plan on following it in this series. What I am going to try and do is show you why I began to question some teachings and where it has led me. Sure, that is subjective but it is the way life works whether most authors will admit it or not.
The illustration below will be an important one in this series of posts:
Van Til claimed to have “the” correct approach to biblical apologetics but I believe that Calvinism in general, and presuppositional apologetics in particular, are infused with Plato’s philosophy. This influence has corrupted Reformed hermeneutics and Van Til’s apologetic.
The few readers of these posts are free to agree or disagree but before anyone buys into this theological system they need to be sure they are comfortable with all of its philosophical underpinnings.
In my next post in this series I plan on discussing how I never understood where Van Til came up with his system until I understood Plato’s allegory of The Cave.
