The more I read what that person says; although he is very well versed on Presuppositionalism. I get the feeling he has a very low opinion of anyone who might not be a Van Till Presuppositionist. He is also a Theonomist; which he believes is a natural working out of Presuppositionalism and Postmillennialism. .He has not stated so, however I think he would have said similar things about RC Sproul not believing that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority. That is speculation on my part and I might be wrong, but if he said it of Schaeffer, he would probably say it of Sproul.
Sproul of course was not a Presuppositionalist; yet anyone who has read or listened to him long enough knows how high he places the Scriptures. Much of what I have learned about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture was from his writings. To quote him: "God's Word is inerrant because God can not err!" Simple, but profound.
Also, if anyone has ever heard or read RC Sproul's exposition on Romans chapter one; they would be left wondering (at least I was) why he was not a Presuppossitionalist in his apologetics. I guess we all have our blind spots.
I did hear part of the reason why he was a Classical Apologist, is because of his mentor John Gerstner who was his prof at Westminster (sorry if I got the seminary name wrong). Whereas Bahnsen, Rushdoony and Gary North were schooled under Van Till. A side note, is that although Bahnsen, Rushnoony and North became Reconstructionists; Van Til did not go that far and spoke out against Rushnoony and his son-in law Gary North on their political views.
Rushnoony has even spoke out against Amillennialism; calling it blasphemy.

By the way, I have decided not to continue in that conversation with him.


Last edited by Tom; Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:19 AM.