Douglas Wilson, John M. Frame and James N. Anderson answer the typical refutation of presuppositional apologetics that it is circular reasoning and begging the question.

 

 

So it looks to me as though we are going to have a full bore discussion of natural law. This is fine, and about time. I do think that there are some genuine differences here, obviously, but perhaps not as many as advertised. Some of this seems to me to be a debate between advocates of natural knowing, on the one hand, and natural understanding on the other.

If you look in the comments on the previous “5K in your pocket” post, you will see a link to Andrew Fulford’s article on certain tensions in Van Til’s position, along with some comments on it. Here is that link again.

 

Full article can be found here:  http://teeny.one/dougwilson-natural-law-deception/