I like RC Sproul but I don’t love him. This is more of a vibe I get from his style and emphasis but I tend to view him as a precursor to new Calvinism with his skepticism of presuppositional apologetics. ….

Even this video, I just think he walks a fine line between the pilgrim and the blind image bearer like there is more middle ground than the Bible speaks to….




Also, I think he misrepresents what CVT believed regarding the Presuppositional position. Why can’t you start with the presupposition of the God of the Bible as the starting point? How could we do any other?

I believe RC has a low view of the authority of scripture in his apologetical approach.

I don’t believe history and nature is enough to compel somebody toward belief. Especially today….. The history surrounding Jesus is sound but it’s most vividly conveyed via Scripture. I reject Sproul’s distinctions/compartmentalizations. Calvinism can never stand on hip intellectualism. Start with scripture, Jesus our Savior, God our Creator, and man the fallen image bearer.

Although I probably failed to cover all that classical apologetics entails, as a compliment to what I did say about Presuppositional apologetics, I like this explanation …..

“Presuppositional apologetics is an approach to apologetics which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith and defend it against objections by exposing the logical flaws of other worldviews and hence demonstrating that biblical theism is the only worldview which can make consistent sense of reality.

Presuppositional apologetics does not discount the use of evidence, but such evidences are not used in the traditional manner—that is, an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever’s autonomous reason. Presuppositional apologetics holds that without a Christian worldview there is no consistent basis upon which to assume the possibility of autonomous reason. When the materialist attempts to refute Christianity by appeal to deductive reason, he is, in fact, borrowing from the Christian worldview, hence being inconsistent with his stated presuppositions.

The presuppositional approach to apologetics calls for the Christian and non-Christian to engage in an internal examination of their respective worldview and thus determine whether or not they are internally consistent. The essence of presuppositional apologetics is an attempt to demonstrate that the non-Christian’s worldview forces him to a state of subjectivity, irrationalism, and moral anarchy.

Since the unbeliever’s worldview is objectively false, by necessity it contains demonstrable contradictions (e.g., he makes moral judgments, but he cannot account for moral absolutes without the Christian/theistic worldview). The believer, within the Christian framework, can account for things like rationality, logic, uniformity of nature, morality, science, etc., because the Christian worldview conforms to a transcendent reality.

In summary, the presuppositional apologist engages in an internal critique of a given worldview in order to demonstrate that it is arbitrary, inconsistent within itself, and lacks the preconditions for epistemology. The presuppositional apologist can thus take a given value which is held by the unbeliever and demonstrate to him that if his own worldview were true, that very belief would be incoherent and/or meaningless. Presuppositional apologetics seeks to prove Christianity with reference to the impossibility of the contrary. In other words, unless the Christian worldview is presupposed—whether at a conscious or subconscious level—there is no possibility for proving anything.”

All that is a bit over my head, but doesn't the Westminster Confession say that the light of nature is sufficient to demonstrate the condemnation of all men under sin, but that only supernatural revelation is sufficient for salvation?

“ Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. “

I am a fan of Presuppositional Apologetics, so obviously I disagree with Sproul's Classical Apologetics. However, he was actually one my all time favorite theologians, mainly because I learned so much about Reformed theology from him.
When New Calvinism first came on the scene, Conservative Reformed and Calvinist theologians and pastors such RC Sproul liked what he saw, because he was seeing younger people interested Reformed Theology. RC Sproul of course had some warning, as did other older Reformed pastors about their direction. He continued to encourage them for a while, however after a while he and people like John MacArthur, started speaking out against them; mainly because New Calvinists had redefined what Calvinism is. Many of the New Calvinists were Charismatics and started to see false teachers involved in the organization. The movement is all but diminished now and many of the people who were involved in the movement have gone woke. Some of them, have personally gone against John MacArthur and Ligonier ministries for their strong stand against the Social Justice Movement and MacArthur's 'Strange Fire Conferences', of which if memory serves me, RC Sproul was involved in at least one of them a few years before he went to be with the Lord.

Tom

Robin
Yes it does and although I do not agree with Classical Apologetics.
Although I believe their position is inconsistent with the WCF. It never the less agreed that only supernatural Revelation can save anyone.
It has more to do with Classical Apologetics approach to getting to supernatural revelation than anything.
Beyond saying that, I can’t say too much more, because it does not make sense to me.
I have actually listened to a sermon by RC Sproul on Romans chapter one, that to me sounded like he supported Presuppositional Apologetics. It made me scratch my head.

Tom

1. The Gospel [mediated by the Spirit] is the power of God unto salvation.
2. The natural revelation only shows Gods wrath upon all mankind [unbelievers].
3. Why? Because the power [omnipotence] and divinity [aseity] of God [His existence as God] is revealed in the creation AND more damning is the fact that these truths are innate in every human being [truths are manifest IN them]. But they all, without exception revile this truth and substitute this incontrovertible truth which they know with lies.

The WCF is simply echoing what Scripture teaches about natural revelation. It is possible to show these imaginative falsehoods which men substitute for the truth through apologetics, but all that does is enrage their hatred of God. The best way to approach unbelievers is to establish that EVERYONE begins with a presupposition; either their own fabrications or Scripture which is the source of all truth. And the only way that anyone is going to accept this is by the hearing of the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit regenerating their dead souls, giving them eyes to see, ears to hear and a mind that is able to comprehend the things of God.