Tom, thanks for the reply. I wish I had time now to interact with it; I hope I can get a chance to dig a bit deeper. One of the things I’m processing at the moment is a recent re-read of John Warwick Montegomery’s refutation of “presuppositional apologetics”, where he takes on Van Til and Dooyeweerd (my spelling is probably wrong). If I understand what Montegomery is saying, the problem with presuppositional arguments is that ultimately they have to deal with the problem of epistemology. If the fallen affects man’s ability to perceive the truth in the way that (some of) Van Til’s writings (and those of his followers) say, then nobody outside the faith can ever “know” anything that is true, but worse, even believers can’t really be sure that their belief is true, since the only way to perceive of the truth is to adopt the presuppositions, and there’s no basis for determining which set of presuppositions are in fact correct. Or, as someone once said in a class I took when discussing Plantinga, if truth is really systemic consistency, but our understanding of the nature of the system we operate in is affected by our eternal state, then there really is no truth, because there are multiple systems and no basis for evaluating their consistency other than “we presuppose.”

Seeing as how (as Michael recently reminded me) I’m neo-orthodox, none of this really affects me directly, except that I’m trying to sort through all of this as best I can. From what I can tell, there are three views of epistemology within Christianity:

• The presuppositional view, which includes Van Til, Schaeffer, Dooyeweerd and many (but not all) reformed thinkers)
• The propositional view, which includes Montegomery, maybe R. C. Sproul, and I’m sure lots of other great minds before we get to the McDowells and Stroebel.
• The personal view, which seems to be the position of the neo-orthodox theologians, but also is the (perhaps subconscious) operating perspective of most American evangelical Christians, including P/C folks as well as those involved in what I call the “new syncretism” – people who believe that the church is converging (a la Richard Foster’s Streams of Living Water) into a unified body where doctrinal differences will matter less than an inclusive spirit, a respect for different experiences of faith, and common methodologies – Willow Creek™ism or Warrenism lurks in there too, to some extent.

I don’t have a problem with a leap either (Montegomery certainly does), but that’s because for the time being at least I’m operating from the belief that truth is ultimately personal. But I’m not foolish enough to never question that belief, because there are plenty of other Christians who don’t agree, and plenty of scripture to support their views.