Presuppositional Reply -- By: Jason Lisle
CAJ 11:2 (Fall 2013) p. 109
I enjoyed reading Dr. Scott Olpihint’s response to my opening article. As I said in my first response, I believe that his approach to apologetics is very biblical. Since Oliphint did not address the issue of the age of the earth in his response, I cannot find much with which to disagree. I will simply suggest, as I did in my response to Oliphint’s first article, that the apologetic method that both he and I use only makes sense in light of the literal history of Genesis and that history includes a six–day creation. Only if we take the words of Genesis as written can we make sense of the apologetic method that we both endorse. And if we take the words of Genesis as written, then God really did create heaven and earth and everything within them in six days. So there is a strong link between what on the surface may seem like two unrelated issues.
In my closing article, I will deal primarily with Dr. Richard Howe’s response. Howe states, “When referring to ‘fact’, Lisle evidently means facts about the physical world, to say that our ‘interpretation’ of even physical facts is always relevant to . . . our worldview makes it impossible for Lisle to know the reality of any worldview
CAJ 11:2 (Fall 2013) p. 110
other than his own.”1 (
Howe states, “What is missing from Lisle’s formulation is any direct access to reality” (
The weakness of Howe’s position is evident in his statement, “As a Classical (or Scholastic) Realist I would submit that ou...
Click here to subscribe