I respect the Van Til apologetic, but I see more credence for presupposing logic and basic reliability of the senses (which makes me Reidian), and then implying God's existence from there. It seems to me that Van Til presupposed too much when he went straight to presupposing the God of the Bible. How would you defend Van Til from this charge that he was presupposing too much?


We have to make some distinctions here. (1) The Christian apologist must presuppose God in his argument, because he is a Christian and that's the way the Bible tells him to think. That presupposition includes all of God's revelation, including the ontological Trinity. (2) Nevertheless, he is not required to say (a) "God exists because God exists." That is what I call a "narrow" circle." It is legitimate to say, (b) "God exists, because of evidences x, y, z. But of course I evaluate these evidences based on God's revelation." (b) is just as circular as (a), but it is more broadly circular, for it brings in evidences of various kinds. It is therefore more persuasive.

Answer by Dr. John M. Frame

Dr. John M. Frame is Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL.