Tot 'n Gereformeerde Apologetiek: Fesko en Van Til

Abstract

The debate between classical apologetics and presuppositional apologetics is still very much alive today. One of the contributions to this debate is John Fesko’s book, Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith (2019). Fesko critiques the theological foundation of presuppositional apologetics, based on the contributions of Cornelius Van Til (the father of presuppositional apologetics).   The aim of this article is to evaluate Fesko’s critique of Van Til. It is generally argued that Fesko’s objections miss the mark and that the differences between him and Van Til are smaller than he suggests in his book. There may indeed be substantial differences between classical apologetics and presuppositional apologetics, but those differences do not lie where Fesko indicates. This article therefore defends the presuppositional position against a straw man that is repeatedly set up and torn down.   This article fits within the framework of classical Reformed theology. Fesko’s main critique is that Van Til distances himself unnecessarily from the classical Reformed tradition. The validity of Reformed doctrine is not discussed but is assumed as a given. The intention is to show that Van Til is not guilty of severing himself from Reformed viewpoints.   Fesko’s objections to Van Til are repeatedly set out. They are also summarized in the form of a deductive argument so that his critique can be clearly understood. Thereafter, the evidence he provides regarding Van Til’s views is examined. Consequently, Van Til’s position is presented and discussed. The conclusion is that Van Til’s position is more nuanced than Fesko acknowledges and that the objections Fesko raises do not amount to a substantive difference between their positions.