I’m watching this video of this guy who runs, among other websites, www.refutingcalvinism.com (which re-directs to a YouTube Channel). What is odd about this video is that he is teaching presuppositional apologetics (which is a distinctively Calvinistic apologetic). I’m about 1/4 of the way though and I though I would share it with you and ask for your thoughts. The guy’s name is Kerrigan Skelly, btw.
My thoughts are this:
1. Calvinism (and presuppositional apologetics) has a distinct understanding of man. Specific to the topic, man is under the noetic effects of sin, his mind and its processes are corrupted by the fall into sin (this would be part of the T, Total Depravity). Presuppositional apologetics consciously attempts to address man as such, pointing out the inconsistencies between how he lives and what he professes to believe. (Consistent) Arminians deny Total Depravity as taught by most Calvinists, usually granting that fallen and unregenerate man has some capacity to understand and accept the things of God completely and entirely on his own. I just heard of Mr Skelly so I’m not sure where he falls on this scale.
2. Presuppositional apologetics was pioneered by Calvinists. If you read anything by Cornelius Van Til you will have no doubt that he was true to the reformed faith as true could be. He taught at Westminster Seminary, headed their apologetics department, he constantly quoted Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, Archibald Hodge, Charles Hodge, etc. And of course the Theologian himself, John Calvin. Van Til’s students Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Rousas John Rushdoony, etc. How consistent can an Arminian be who attempts to utilize a distinctively Calvinistic apologetic? (Take this question as half polemic/half inquisitive)
I’ve never heard of Mr. Skelly before so any info would be cool if you know about him or his ministry (Pin Point Evangelism)
I just found this blog that talks about Skelly filing a DMCA against someone who posted a YouTube Video in which he denied Original Sin.
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=9602
“How consistent can an Arminian be who attempts to utilize a distinctively Calvinistic apologetic?”
The short answer is that he cannot be consistent so long as he is an Arminian. The long answer is something I unfortunately do not have time for right now. Skelly has been causing some problems in a group that a friend of mine once ministered to.
In my opinion, the Pelagian and Arminian guys on Youtube (i.e. Kerrigan Skelly, Jesse Morrell, etc.) are hearing the Van Tillian rhetoric and parroting it because it appeals to their fundamentalist tendencies. Unfortunately for them one cannot have a working understanding of Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics and be an Arminian. Since most people do not read Van Til they do not realize how much of his work was focused upon destroying the Arminian epistemology which teaches such unbiblical and philosophically destructive notions as the existence of brute facts and a neutral concept of possibility.
Mr. Bolt,
Well said! I would give this comment 5 stars if I had a rating system on here! I remember Van Til dealing with 3 distinct groups: 1) Reformed Christians (Calvinists), 2) Roman Catholics (Romanists), and 3) an inconsistent half-way area between #1 and #2 (non-Calvinist protestants, or Arminians)
Mr. Skelly is not even an Arminian. I would very much consider him a Pelagian! He doesn’t just deny Total Depravity, he’s argued with me before that Origin Sin is an unbiblical idea.
I thought Total Depravity IS Original Sin.
Even Van Til and Bahnsen theologies can be critiqued by their own apologetic. Of which I have read.
Presuppositional apologetics is not just an apologetic, but works very well in most debates/discussions.
Bahnsen, Van Til, and other calvinists do not have a monopoly on truth. You don’t have to abide by certain doctrines in order to properly utilize this technique.
Be careful as you label other christians…just because someone believes in some similar points of arminians or pelagians doesn’t qualify them as such. Catholics believe in the virgin birth: Does this make everyone who believes in the virgin birth a catholic?
I fail to see why an Arminian cannot use the presuppositional method consistently. Maybe I’m not a consistent Arminian. I’m not sure. But I see no reason why I can’t point out to someone that (1) God is my ultimate authority and therefore I cannot make a case for God’s existence that requires me to rest the conclusion “God exists” on premesis that are more certain than that conclusion, and (2) that any wordlview other than Christianity can be shown to be false due to thier inheirent self-contradictions.
I am fully aware that Van Til and his disciples are all Calvinists. But I don’t see any part of the Transcendental Argument that requires me to accept Calvinism
I’m an Arminian and consider myself to be presuppositional in my apologetic method. I think you’re confused when you assert that Arminians don’t believe in total depravity and that we think people can know things of God “on their own.” We do believe in total depravity– we believe that every part of the human experience is tainted by a sinful nature. Our ability to know things of God comes from what Wesley called prevenient grace– what you call common grace, except it has the ability to save. Secondly, the fact that we are made in God’s image, which is also a grace, may give us the ability to peek into spiritual things, though when we deny God we find ourselves being inconsistent– believing in morality but denying its Source, or believing in reason but denying He who is the standard of it.
If the Calvinist wants to be consistent when pressing his point that being saved is necessary to reason aright, he must argue that the non-Christian cannot reason at all. But he won’t deny that. He in fact will argue that men and women who God has not given the ability to come to faith can still, by His common grace and the image of Himself in them, often reason quite well, but that because they deny Him, they will reason inconsistently, needing God to be able to back up any truths that they believe in. I as an Arminian believe this, and am in agreement, as far as I can see, with men like James White and Douglas Wilson.
Can you explain how this viewpoint is inconsistent with presuppositional apologetics?
Amen! Arminians are 1 point Calvinists, if there is such a thing. Jacobus Arminius was not a Pelagian. He affirmed Total Depravity and at one time was actually a Calvinist Apologist. I do not find any contradiction in my study thus far of Presuppositional Apologetics that would deny Arminianism. I think Calvinists should define their own theology and let Arminians define theirs. We are on the same side by the way. We both hold a Christian Worldview.
By “a” Christian Worldview are you implying that there is more than one? Because Calvinism and Arminianism surely hold to competitive worldviews.
I disagree with the assertion that Arminians are “1 point Calvinists.” The key word in the previous comments is *consistent* Arminian. Arminius upheld Total Depravity in speech, but he did not in practice, nor have Arminians ever, for they reject the necessary implications of the doctrine. The insertion of prevenient grace to cover the problem of total depravity means that Arminianism, at the very most, affirms total depravity only in theory.