Three decades ago, the Westminster Theological Journal published an article by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., with the modest title, “Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Cor 2:6–16.” Gaffin’s main purpose was to provide some direct exegetical argument to support “several key emphases” in the epistemology of Cornelius Van Til. (Read the first page of the article to get the fuller context.)
In my humble estimation, Gaffin’s article is a masterclass in theological exegesis. But it has recently been subjected to criticism by two Reformed writers, Joel Carini (here) and Keith Mathison (here). Both contend that Gaffin illegitimately imports into his exegesis a philosophical doctrine that also polluted Van Til’s thought: the idealist theory of “epistemological holism,” according to which only exhaustive knowledge can be true knowledge, due to the unity and interconnectedness of all truth.
I think the criticisms of Carini and Mathison miss the mark, and fortunately I don’t need to prove it myself, because Brian Mattson has written an eloquent defense of Gaffin and Van Til. I commend it to you.
I’m still working on the Mattson paper (and I’m new to Presuppositionalism in general), but having read Dr. Gaffin’s article, I’m struggling with some of his claims which seem contrary to your system. He says on page 111 “there is no point of contact epistemologically between believers and unbelievers…The notion of such a common ground or capacity, rational or otherwise, that can be used to build toward the gospel, or otherwise prepare and dispose unbelievers to accept its truth, is not only not present in this passage; it is alien to it, jarringly so.”
In your ‘Presuppositionalism in the Dock’ article you criticize CVT’s critics for thinking he rejected ‘common ground’ with unbelievers, and you say he acknowledged common but not neutral ground.
Toward the end of the article, Gaffin does acknowledge image-bearing as a point of contact (just not an epistemological one?) with unbelievers, but it seems to only be for preaching and hearing the Gospel. The idea of a transcendental argument for the Christian worldview from a point of common ground with unbelievers never appears in the article.
Am I just not reading him charitably enough?