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.

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?

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

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?

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)

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.

http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=9602