Editing Presuppositional apologetics (section)

==History==
The modern origins of presuppositional apologetics are in the work of [[Netherlands|Dutch]] theologian [[Cornelius Van Til]], a member of the [[Orthodox Presbyterian Church]], who began to adopt a presuppositional approach to defending his belief in the truth of his faith as early as the late 1920s.{{Sfn | Oliphint | 1991}}{{Page needed | date = October 2013}}  Van Til personally disliked the term "presuppositional", as he felt it misrepresented his approach to apologetics, which he felt was focused primarily on the preeminence of the Bible as the ultimate criterion for truth, rather than denying or ignoring evidence. He did, however, accept the label reluctantly, given that it was a useful way of distinguishing between those who deny a neutral basis for apologetics and those who do not.  His student, [[Greg Bahnsen]], aided in some of the later developments of Van Tillian Presuppositionalism, and the [[Bahnsen Theological Seminary]] continues to promote presuppositional apologetics in its curriculum. [[John Frame (theologian)|John Frame]], another student of Van Til, also continues to advocate a presuppositional approach, although he is generally more critical of Van Til's thought than Bahnsen was.{{Sfn | Fernandes | 1997}}{{Page needed | date = October 2013}}  Bahnsen's protégé, Michael R. Butler, has also been active in advancing the field. Among his contributions is a technical, metalogical study of transcendental arguments in general and the [[Transcendental argument for the existence of God]] in particular, which he wrote for Bahnsen's [[festschrift]].{{Sfn | Butler | 2002 | pp = 64–124}}

By 1952, presuppositional apologetics had acquired a new advocate in the [[Presbyterian]] theologian [[Gordon Clark]].{{Sfn | Hoover | 1984}}{{Page needed | date = October 2013}}  He embraced the label "presuppositional" since his approach to apologetics, emphasizing the priority of [[epistemology]] and an axiom of revelation, was more closely concerned with the logical order of assumptions than was Van Til. The differences between the two views on presuppositionalism, though few in number, caused a significant rift between the two men, and even after both Clark and Van Til had died, John Robbins (a theologian and former student of Clark's) and Bahnsen were often involved in heated exchanges.<ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA072.htm | last = Bahnsen | title = Response to Robbins | newspaper = Journey | publisher = CMF now}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa079.htm | last = Flood | title = Response to Bahnsen | newspaper = Journey | publisher = CMF now}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa078.htm | last = Bahnsen | title = Response to Flood | newspaper = Journey | publisher = CMF now}}.</ref>

In general, Van Til's approach is far more popular and widespread than Clark's.