ahh
the old ad hominum attack.
really I thot better of you.
perhaps Van Til was correct
Ad hominem? Hardly. Your brusque dismissal of Montgomery’s ‘dozen books’ earlier leads me to believe that you don’t have a clue about his work and all I did was restate my observation.
Van Til was a Calvinist. His apologetic presupposes the truth of Christianity and states there can be no common ground between believer and unbeliever. That position derives from a Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity that argues that the intellect is warped in non believers.
It’s a philosophical apologetic that ends up arguing over epistemology and theories of knowledge. Some of it reminds me of Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God. The people who argue Van Til apologetics are very bright but I find it all very tedious.
As a Lutheran Montgomery is not stuck with total depravity’s assumptions about the intellect, which in fact would make evidence based apologetics mostly pointless. Montgomery assumes a common intellectual ground is possible between believer and unbeliever and uses the theory of evidence to argue for the truth and historicity of Christianity.