Chris, you must be ill.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (69.170.134.60) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (72.233.2.58) and so is spam.

Theology determines apologetic. Excellent.

You are reading too much into “covenantal” as I am using that term, yes.

Thanks again for the exchange.

I would agree with you that theology determines apologetics, so I am hardly out on a limb. I would even say Dr. Lisle would agree too, and perhaps he needs to tighten that response up a bit, but my complaint with you is that you way overreach with your criticism by lumping presuppositionalism with Covenant Theology and preterism. One does not have to be a preterist, or a confessional keeping Covenant Theologian, or even a full-five point Calvinist in order to utilize the methodology of presuppositionalism. You say I’m yammer on and on about Covenant Theology, but you certainly imply a necessary connection when you write about true, biblical, presuppositional covenantal apologetics. Am I reading too much into the word “covenantal?”

You can have the last word and I’ll bow out.

The initial question to Dr. Lisle was, “Do you think there is a theological or philosophical link between Presuppositionalism, Calvinism, and Preterism?” The reason I complained that Lisle went off and spoke of denominations instead of theological positions is because the reader was not asking about denominations, he was asking about theological positions. There is not really any other way for me to make my point here than to reiterate what I already emphatically stated. The reason I kept repeating the terms I did was because the reader did so. That was what the question was about, it is black and white, and there is no getting around it. If you want to continue to claim that talking about denominations is sufficient to answer a question about specific theological positions then so be it, but the reader very specifically asked about particular theological positions in his question and even followed with, “Do they have to be all part of the same ‘package’ to be consistent? Or you think they can be separated and still be consistent within each one?” But if you insist that Lisle is saying something like, “Methodists can be consistent presuppositionalists” then we can move the argument over there. Just realize that the reason I would say Methodists cannot be consistent presuppositionalists is because Methodists are generally Arminian. So we are back to talking about theological positions. Why not just be up front about it? The reader was.

I don’t know what the relevance of Sovereign Grace is. Remember that I wrote, “I do not find it at all encouraging that Lisle considers Arminian theology either ‘legitimate’ or ‘non-heretical.’ Now, granted, there is a lot to be discussed concerning the term “heresy,” there are plenty who would apply it to true Arminianism. But even setting that aside, to claim that Arminianism is a “legitimate” theology is a sure error. Yet Lisle saddles himself with such a claim. He does so, again, for ecumenical reasons.

You misrepresent what I stated when you claim that presuppositionalism divorced from Calvinism, preterism, and Dispensationalism ceases to be presuppositionalism. Am I really so unclear that you do not understand what I am saying? My claim throughout this entire ordeal has been the very simple one repeated over and over again in the initial post, in the links I placed within that post, in the subsequent post addressing you, and in the presuppositional literature. It is the very same claim that is made by the Apostles, by Van Til, Bahnsen, WTS, TMS, James White, etc. The claim is that theology determines apologetic. And indeed, what I actually wrote was, “When presuppositional apologetics are divorced from theological considerations they fail to be presuppositional apologetics.” This is nothing new. This is nothing shocking. Unless you’re just totally ignorant of presuppositionalism, but you claim that you are not. So I am baffled by your continued attempt to defend what Lisle clearly has gotten wrong.

Frankly, Fred, as I look over the remainder of your comment I am making a decision to just cut off my response here. I have already mentioned that you are way out on a limb. You are also not listening. You keep introducing irrelevancies. You’ve implied that I’m an arrogant YRR apologist, you compare me to WLC, you say that I am making “stunning pronouncements against the sophistry of Jason Lisle and AiG,” you ask me to explain why a Calvinist Dispensationalist cannot use presuppositionalism, you yammer on and on about “covenant theology,” something I have never said a word about either in these posts or in the 700+ other posts on this site. None of these claims is relevant to the point I was making. You seem to see what you want to see, and I don’t have time to sift through the irrelevancies or spell everything out again right now. Maybe that is my fault for posting while I am busy elsewhere. I don’t mean to be rude, but I have better things to do. You may want to reread what I wrote in my posts. Perhaps your judgment is clouded by your relationship with Dr. Lisle. I don’t know. I assure you that I don’t mean ill against him, or you, for that matter. I am just pointing out that he is terribly mistaken on this point, and I have met very, very few presuppositionalists from any theological camp who are in disagreement with me.

Theological considerations cannot be divorced from presuppositionalism. The particular theological positions necessary to presuppositionalism is another matter, but Arminianism is neither necessary nor consistent with presuppositionalism, as shown in the link I provide in the original post.

I can’t get any more clear than that. Hope this helps. Enjoy your day. Look forward to your input in the future.

Just so I am clear: I dropped names because Chris opined in his post that he didn’t know who I was. I am just giving you a bit of background as to who I am and where I come from. The names are affiliations I have that I would think you would recognize. There was no intention on padding a resume here.

Do you want to be taken seriously, Fred? Make an argument, and stop telling us who you know. I know people too.

Let me boil it down to specifics:

Chris’s original post was titled “Why Dr. Jason Lisle of AIG (he’s no longer with them, btw) does not understand presuppositional apologetics.” Okay. That’s a rather bold claim. When I read the entirety of Dr. Lisle’s original response to that reader, however, it seems rather clear he does. Moreover, I happen to know the guy a bit, have heard him speak, read his books (something Chris admits he didn’t). I came away from those encounters certain the guy understands presuppositionalism. Yet Chris is insistent he doesn’t.

Chris then nit-picks between the word “denominations” and “theological positions.” Because Dr. Lisle spoke of “denominations” he’s to be faulted for not offering a clearer answer, or at least an answer to Chris’s liking. But denominations often reflect theological positions, so I see no problem with this distinction. For instance, I don’t know any Presbyterian Arminians. Maybe there are some, but I’ve missed them.

Chris then complains about the use of “non-heretical.” We can flesh out all the particulars as to what defines heresy, but to give the basics, I don’t count Sovereign Grace folks as “heretical.” Maybe mushy in some areas, and I certainly don’t care for their charismaticism; but heretical? I could say similar things about Missionary Baptists and Free-will Baptists for that matter.

Chris continues his pillorying of Dr. Lisle by saying he is ignoring the reader’s question about theologies rather than denominations. He keeps repeating “Calvinism, preterism, and dispensationalism” as if these words are either related or antithetical, or something. But again, Lisle’s use of “denominations” is apt in this discussion because the men he mentions, Bahnsen and Van til were OPC, and as far as I know most OPC are Calvinists, preterists (or at least Bahnsen was) and none are Dispensational.

I can only conclude by Chris’s repetition of these three terms that he thinks there IS some philosophical connection between them. IOW, if one isn’t a Calvinist, or a preterist, and heaven forbid, a Dispensationalist, that person cannot be a pure presuppositionalist. I draw that conclusion because Chris goes on to say if presuppositional apologetics are divorced from these theological considerations it ceases to be presuppositional apologetics. AND THEN GET THIS. He says it isn’t necessarily the best solution to go to scripture to resolve “this difficult.” Instead, we need to consider what all these historical theologians said about it in the past, many of which weren’t even presuppositionalists. William Lane Craig couldn’t have said it better.

And after Chris makes all these stunning pronouncements against the sophistry of Jason Lisle and AiG, he concludes that it all flies in the face of true, biblical, presuppositional covenantal apologetics. And then admits to NOT EVEN HAVE READ LISLE BOOK! What the heck?!

So spend the afternoon writing up a detailed post as to why a Calvinistic Dispensational oriented guy like me can’t really use presuppositionalism. You may want to throw in there many NCT guys I know. Explain to me why the covenant of works and grace are even relevant to using TAG in an argument with an atheist. Do I have to be a confessional keeping Baptist or Paedobaptist in order to really, really practice presuppositionalism? What about being a strict Sabbatarian? I’ll check back tomorrow morning.

Wow. I’m impressed. You must not have anything going on there this afternoon that you can turn around such a long, withering complaint against me, complete with [sic]s, as well.

When Chris has time, he is fairly thorough, yes. I’m puzzled at the response, however. Was there something in the post which you feel was inaccurate? I don’t see any answer to any of the actual points he raises, in the following text, so I’m confused as to the intent of this reply, as for myself – it was intended to *reply*, was it not?

You write,

That is not only a rather unthinking way to engage with other Christians, it is a despicable way to do so.

Oh come on Chris, grow a spine, or a thicker skin or something. I’m not attacking you here.

Well, engaging in well-poisoning without the benefit of knowing the person personally (which seems to be the appeal being made later, with regard to who you know, et al) is, quite frankly, rather despicable as a form of address, given your lack of personal interaction with Chris. I rather doubt that you know Chris well enough to have any notion of whether he is “YRR” – or that you have any way of so knowing. Since this statement was in reference to your characterization of him as “YRR” – which, quite honestly, is ridiculous, I might add – I think it’s rather germane. You were the one who dropped by, made your comments, and had them responded to – and has made everything about “knowing” and “who you know”. Amazingly, you are then making all sorts of comments about someone you don’t know at all. Go figure. If you don’t like being told that your comments were 1) Inaccurate 2) Ignorant 3) Inconsistent with Christian charity, then I would suggest you find somewhere more tolerant of fallacious reasoning – because this is not that place.

It is not Chris’ responsibility to “grow thicker skin” because you chose to be needlessly and carelessly derogatory in your assessment. Unlike Chris, I’m well aware of what “YRR” is considered to be in the movement you belong to, so I know that it was intentionally inflammatory. First, Chris is a PhD candidate at SBTS – he’s not a “young rabble-rouser” of any sort. Second, he has an MDiv (from SBTS) and a BA in Philosophy, as well. He’s hardly “restless,” either, as he has been engaged in serious study, of serious subjects, at a serious school – while doing the work you see here at this blog – which is most definitely Reformed. I’ll give you the last R. Name-calling is hardly something I would welcome in regard to my friend Chris, nor is it something I intend to tolerate from fellow Christians. So, if you’d like to say it nicely, feel free – but say it nicely – and drop the passive-aggressive “nuance.” We’re not Jamin, not DeMar, and we’re not Mark Driscoll, either. Whatever issues you have with any of the above, check them at the door. Pugnaciousness might be welcome in some contexts, but dropping in making inflammatory statements while making practically no argument whatsoever is hardly one of those contexts.

You critiqued Lisle and claimed he is essentially ignorant of presuppositionalism and doesn’t understand it at all, and shouldn’t really be instructing anyone about it. I happen to have read his books, have heard him talk on numerous occasions, and know the guy personally, so you’re wrong with your conclusions. He does know a lot about presuppositional apologetics as does myself. I don’t know how I can go about “proving” that to you, unless of course I totally embrace your theological constructs, I guess.

As it has been one of the central thrusts of this blog from its inception – and that of all of the contributors here – yes, we do believe that the “popular level” of presup is sadly misinformed about what presup is – because it doesn’t read enough systematic theology. The level of understanding possessed by the church at large is even lower than that. This is not a direct critique of you – although I have read some of your material, incidentally – but of the popular conception of those who profess to be presuppositionalists, of which Lisle is an excellent example. The problem is not just dispensationalism – although this is a contributing factor – but of the lack of direct theological application of the method. This is applicable in both methodology as well as argumentation and even theory. There is a lack of direct theological application because the typical conception of the method (even by its popular proponents) is that it only deals with a narrow field of inquiry. This is directly contrary to that which Van Til developed, or that which we see prior to him in historical theology. I have a horde of posts on the topic, so feel free to browse.

At any rate, from the general tone of this blog (which I have benefited from, btw), I get the picture that you all seem to operate under this notion – albeit a mistaken one – that a person cannot “practice presuppositional methodology” consistently unless one’s particular theological ducks are in a row. K. Scott Oliphant’s silly idea of renaming “presuppositional” apologetics as “Reformed” apologetics, gets bantered about here.

This is indeed the case, that “theology determines apologetic methodology” – as Dr. White says often. If we fundamentally disagree on how the Bible must be read; which, as Covenantal and Dispensational theologians, respectively, we must; then it becomes clear that there are very clear differences in our apologetic. Whether we agree (in a general fashion) on soteriology is only a slice of the overall pie. I, for instance, am a confessionalist like James White – I subscribe to the 1689, and attend a church which does, as well. I’m hardly restless, I’m by no means as young as I’m used to be, with my 6 children. So, frankly, I’m hardly “YRR” material – and neither is Chris. We do, however, have a long-developed position that is seemingly being dismissed with no argumentation, by someone who claims to hold to the method we do – and doesn’t seem to be interested in using it to prove his point in this case. That your theology is very, very relevant to your apologetic. The more wrong you are, the less able you are to even attempt consistency. Are you presuppositional? Then argue as if you are – by 1) Making an argument at all and 2) By arguing presuppositionally. Otherwise, you’re doing nothing but proving our point.

Secondly, it’s “Covenantal Apologetics” that Oliphint calls it – Van Til was who called it “Reformed Apologetics” – are you going to call his idea silly? General ignorance like this is why it’s difficult to take these claims of expertise in presuppositional apologetics seriously, if you must know. With claims like these, it starts to make us wonder whether you *do* read this blog, or have any particular knowledge of what Oliphint is actually saying, why he’s saying it, and what Van Til said before him, when in the same apologetic chair Oliphint currently occupies (quite adequately, I might add). I will further note that Van Til didn’t like the nomenclature of “presuppositionalism” – and there are reasons for this; as well as for Oliphint’s dislike of the term, and for our use of Covenantal apologetics in much of our own material. You will notice that I use them interchangeably – instead of knee-jerking, it might be helpful to do a bit more research into the subjects you’re holding forth on.

Lisle was just telling his reader that it isn’t true that a non-Calvinist can not utilize presuppositionalism, which I happen to agree with him in general. In other words, the Covenant Reformed folks do not control the market on presuppositionalism.

Lisle was wrong. Chris argued for why he was wrong, and you had nothing substantive to argue in reply to that. If you want to be considered to have given a response, then make an argument, instead of a series of assertions. He had an argument – attend to it, please.

As for myself, I graduated from TMS, I attend Grace Church where John MacArthur is pastor. I work at Grace to You, his radio ministry, where Phil Johnson of http://www.teampyro.blogspot.com is my boss, so to speak. I’ve even had dinner with James White a handful of times. So I hope you understand I ain’t some shoot from the hip, drive by troll. I’m just offering you a different, though challenging, perspective.

Great, I go to church and blog. While it might be personally satisfying to consider a list of one’s own “connections” to supposedly “prove” one’s knowledge of presuppositional apologetics – I don’t find any of the above relevant to the point in question – do you know what you’re talking about? If you can’t identify “Reformed Apologetics” as a Van Tillian term, or “Covenantal Apologetics” as Oliphint’s, it might be the case that you don’t. As those are one of very few substantive comments you’ve offered in reply to Chris’ systematic response to your initial comment (which was similarly unrelated to the subject, although quite auto/biographical) – and wrong, to boot, forgive me if I fail to see the relevance of the name-dropping.

Interestingly, while you say you “agree with regards to Arminianism” – you then proceed to tell us that you don’t agree regarding Arminianism, when you assert that Brown argued presuppositionally. As has already been related – while you keep using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means.

In any case, Fred – I’m well aware of who you are, incidentally, but thanks for making sure we know how well-connected you happen to be – whether or not you know a bunch of really important/famous people matters not a whit when it comes to what 1) Presup is 2) What you have argued in response to the original post and/or this reply post of Chris’ 3) Whether you are cognizant of the literature which teaches how to DO presup. You comments thus far have been WILDLY irrelevant, and thus, to quote Bahnsen, you are in danger of “making yourself ignorable”. Do you want to be taken seriously, Fred? Make an argument, and stop telling us who you know. I know people too. Whoopty doo. It doesn’t matter. Make an argument for your position, and against ours – make sure you can properly represent it, incidentally – and you’ll have something worth responding to in more detail. As it stands, you’ve effectively told us that we’re wrong, Oliphint does silly stuff, some (allegedly) crazy people do X, other people (who are cool cats) do Y, and you know (Z times #) .

Oh, and get a new schtick. YRR was out months ago. Call us Covenanters or something, and write a post about the dangers of Scottish invasion, theonomic tyranny, and how it’s imminent if those Covenantalists don’t change their ways. It’ll go over about as well, be about as accurate, and be just as sensationalistic. It’ll also poison the well. But then again maybe you could actually, you know, make an argument. That would be a breath of fresh air.