Dear friend, do you persevere? Allow me to give you a brief personal testimonial on perseverance and why every person should. Here was I in the place of the exam; the clock had begun to count down. I looked at the options and found them bleak indeed. I thought to myself: “You should quit, it is the most honest way. These are things about which you know nothing.” Friend, I am used to approaching exams in full possession. I have crushed exams. I laugh at them. I do not get nervous, I get prepared. I do not then arrive at them and think I only know a little about a few things on this exam, and I am toast. But that is how I felt about this exam. I had thought I had a good grasp on a few things, but the questions seemed to banish what I knew as morning mist is burned away by the beaming sun; the little I knew was diminishing before me strangely.

And yet, I determined not to quit. To quit was to study, and to study was not something I really wanted to spend time doing. Who wants to study presuppositionalistic apologetics? So instead I persevered. I wrote what I could, I wracked my brains, I remembered curious things one never usually does, I guessed. I turned it in without comments, having had time to sit around reflecting that comments about failing were not going to be all that funny and would achieve nothing positive.

I found out this morning, from asking very casually, that indeed I had passed. And I thought to myself, “that is the value of persevering, of not giving up, of bashing ahead and trusting to luck.” Dear friend, persevere. For luck is on the side of those who piously wish not to clutter their minds with presuppostionalistic apologetics.

6 thoughts on “Perseverance

  1. I would love to read an expansion on the differences between your views on apologetics and those of the presupps.

  2. Sure – one does not defend a Lion, one sets him loose. I’m interested more in the epistemological differences. I don’t really understand, to be honest, the differences between the epistemologies of Frame and Van Til and a more fideistic position – at least the fideism that some conservatives would hold.

    1. I am not sure I can provide what you’re looking for. I had a question on the test about the criticism of James Montgomery Ward (or someone such) about Van Til just being a fideist shouting louder. I strung together two or three presuppositionalistic buzzwords and apparently hit on what was being looked for (or passed on the virtue of other answers). I think most Van Tilian epistemology just consists in asserting (there is a little more, but I don’t know what it is) that only Christians can know because only they have the Holy Spirit. I will endeavor to organize my objections. You can’t expect them to add up to a serious wrestling with Van Til. I can’t do that. It is a mental perversion and discussing things with them is like talking to a paedophile about the possible benefits that there might be to a minor when he is groped. Not a conversation I can with equanimity undergo.

  3. Anything would help, including differences on views on the affections, the imagination’s function, the place of culture and God’s revelation within it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s