I want to catalog some of the differences that exist for those that hold to presuppositionalism. I wish to discuss things that Presuppositionalist unify and depart on. The reason I am doing this is that after all these years people still ask me the differences between these individuals. This will not be me commenting on which positions are right or wrong, but formatting a map for your studies. First things first, What is a Presuppositionalist? They stand in the Reformed tradition and they must maintain the sort of Christian distinctiveness into their apologetic approach. The differences involve thoughts about TAG, transcendental method, Paradox, Scientific Realism, Logic, Ethics, traditional arguments, and Justification. This won’t be an all-encompassing list and I won’t be covering everyone. It simply is to go through a handful of presuppositionalist and give a brief elaboration on what distinctive beliefs they maintain.

Dr. Cornelius Van Til-

Van Til held that TAG and a transcendental method was better than the Old Princeton school approach that came from Aquinas. That the transcendental method adequately responded to man’s depravity and fit with God being the ultimate authority. That the unbeliever has no ability to function without God let alone claim a lack of evidence. This was his indirect method that is the heart of the transcendental method. The heart of his apologetic around the concrete universal. That the trinity was the answer to the problem of universals. This made all other worldviews incoherent in his mind. They could never reconcile the abstract universals and the concrete particulars. He was a part of the Dutch Reformed tradition that had a view of transforming culture. His doctrine of God is tied to his strong doctrine of Divine incomprehensibility and Paradox. From Divine incomprehensibility comes his view of Paradox. That at no single point does God and our(Human) knowledge intersect. He has an Archetypal knowledge and we have the ectypal knowledge. This was his view of the Creator-Creature distinction. That man and God are just ontologically different as God is utterly different. This is what goes into his view on logic being a creative fiat of God. His position on justification is a matter of whether you read him as a foundationalist or a Coherentist. He also believed we could know things by using science and God had provided the connection between our minds and the creation. This made circular reasoning necessary because the nature God plays in all knowledge. It isn’t simple “x is true, because x is true” circular reasoning, but is another kind that is brought about by finite human reasoning and having an ultimate authority.

Dr. Gordon Clark-

Gordon Clark challenged Van Til and his followers to show the premises of TAG. He was not a fan of the transcendental method but had his own method of showing other systems to be incoherent. He was not a fan of traditional proofs and he was a foundationalist. He posited the axiom of revelation and argued other axioms are inconsistent. He thought that divine incomprehensibility that Van Til posited reduced our knowledge of God to skepticism. He thought Van Til’s view of paradox was incoherent. Clark thought the Bibles ethic was superior to that of secular ethics. Clark thought only Scripture and that which is deducible from could only constitute as knowledge. He thought the laws of logic are deducible from the Bible and that God is logic himself. He was against the traditional proofs for Gods existence and maintained that Scripture is axiomatic and couldn’t be proven. Clark maintained that induction was fallacious and committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So, you can’t know anything by sensation and science. Clark didn’t speak about metaphysics.

Sye Ten Bruggencate and Jeff Durbin –

Jeff, Eric, and Sye Ten’s approach were to show the other worldview is impossible because they couldn’t be certain of their position and that they can be wrong. That only Christianity has provided the God that can create in such a way that you can be certain and know he exists. Sye maintains without “Absolute certainty” your belief isn’t knowledge. They are theonomist. They maintain a high view of the transcendental method. They have no opinion about Divine Paradox that I am aware of. They are a scientific realist and they are sort of foundationalist. They are against traditional proofs because they think it puts God on trial in a kangaroo court. They don’t discuss the ontology of the Laws of logic.

Matt Slick-

Slick thinks highly of the TAG argument. He thinks the transcendental method is superior to that of Classical Apologetics, but he does like the Kalam cosmological argument and other classical arguments. He has no stated position about Paradox in Christian theology. He does maintain that we know things through our senses and the science imparts knowledge. He is not a theonomist, but he isn’t an outspoken critic of it. He is a Divine Conceptualist. I think he is also a sort of foundationalist that isn’t aware of it.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Michael Butler-

Bahnsen had a very high view of TAG and the transcendental method. Bahnsen tried to advance Van Til’s concept of the transcendental method. He thought the classical arguments are incorrect and compromised on the issue of God’s authority. He thought classical apologetics and evidentialism are sinful. He didn’t discuss theological paradox. I don’t think that there existed that much discontinuity between Bahnsen and Van Til, but without him being able to expand his thought it is difficult to say. He emphasized that the natural man engages in self-deception and without Christ is left in that state. He focused on epistemology more than he did metaphysics has and tried to expand Revelational Epistemology. He was a scientific realist and thought we could gain knowledge from our senses. He was the leading theonomist of his day and thought of it as an extension of presuppositionalism. He had a liking for Plantinga and probably had a modified view of foundationalism.

Dr. K. Scott Oliphint-

Dr. Oliphint stresses the central role of theology in philosophy. His philosophy is built on the concept of covenant. He has a high view of the transcendental method and TAG. He remains the closest to Van Til in many estimations. He thinks paradox is foundational to all human thought and continues following in Van Til’s footsteps. He helps distinguish between Paradox that is non-arbitrary. That the paradox of the Trinity is a paradox that gives everything meaning (one and the many). He thinks that God has made us and our minds so that we can have scientific knowledge. He thinks the classical arguments are wrong to use because he believes it is an act of “autonomous thought”. He thinks logic is created, but they are immutable because they are conformed to God’s nature. He may hold to Bosserman’s Christian view of justification, but I am unsure. That is a Coherentist externalist theory of Justification.

Dr. John Frame and Dr. Vern Poythress-

Dr. Frame and Dr. Poythress are major proponents of a view called triperspectivalism. That is the thought since the limitation of humans and the dynamic way God has created the world. Frame maintains that TAG and the transcendental method are not distinct from the classical approach. He may have changed his position on this. Dr. Frame also has this idea that circular reasoning is not problematic, but are just unconvincing. Dr.Frame and Poythress continue with Van Til’s notion of Paradox and defend it. They are a scientific realist and maintain we gain knowledge through our senses. He is fine with the use of the traditional proofs for God’s existence. They are against 2kingdom theology and are traditional Presbyterians. They seem to be a type of foundationalism. Poythress takes the view of Oliphint on the ontology of Logic. Frame thinks logic is a divine attribute.

Steve Hays-

Hays is a man who deals with everyone from atheist to Eastern Orthodox. He prefers metaphysics to that of epistemology. He is not a fan of the transcendental method or TAG. He thinks that TAG fails to prove distinctly the Christian worldview. He seems to follow in Frame’s way of thought. He is not a big fan of paradox, but he thinks paradox theology is defensible and prefers the term “mystery”. He in his bio states that he is a scientific anti-realist and holds that knowledge comes through the senses. He holds to Divine conceptualism. He maintains a high view of the OT law and he is a modified theonomist. He is fine with the traditional arguments. Hays hasn’t provided any information on whether he is a foundationalist or a Coherentist.

Dr. James Anderson and Dr. Greg Welty-

Anderson has defended a modal version of TAG and he seems to be in favor of the transcendental method. Anderson has defended theological paradox and argued that it is warranted in believing in such. They are reformed and have a high view of the OT law. They seem to be a scientific realist and that knowledge come through the senses. They are the main proponents of Divine Conceptualism. They prefer some traditional arguments over others. Dr. Anderson used Plantinga’s work on warrant and he seemed very critical of Coherentism. I am more ignorant of Dr. Welty thoughts about this issue.