Let's look at three passages in the New Testament:
Recently for instance, a question was posed to a group of presuppositionalists. The question was:
The first to respond to this question answered as follows:
On the nature of justification there are two kinds: internalism and externalism. Would presuppositionalism fall in more with internal justification? What do you guys think?
This responder is confident and his answer gives no hint of any willingness to backpedal. His mind is firmly made up, and he's ready to stick his neck out for it.
No, presuppositionalism is emphatically and explicity opposed to internalism. Critics of presuppositionalism slip up at exactly this point. If Van Til were committed to internalism, he would have concluded that inf act [sic] unbelievers cannot know anything, His critics falsely claim that this is where his philosophy leads, but it doesn't, precisely because it is an externalist philosophy.
But as soon as that steadfast answer was submitted, another replied with the following statement:
While the first responder answered that "presuppositionalism is emphatically and explicitly opposed to internalism," the second responder was a little more nonchalant, but just as confident. "Yep, internal." He does suggest "questioning the coherence of the distinction," but his response clearly indicates that, if "the coherence of the distinction" between internalism and externalism is granted, then "yep," presuppositionalism would weigh in on the side of internalism.
Yep, internal. However, one might try questioning the coherence of the distinction.
The conflict has yet to be resolved in favor of either internalism or externalism, and I suppose gridlock will get the better of each side in the end. Indeed, it could cause a rift within Vantillian presuppositionalism as controversial as the disputes between Calvinists and Arminians, lasting hundreds of years and occupying endless volumes of overheated exchange.
I'm sure glad these aren't my problems.
by Dawson Bethrick