What was Van Til's view on the use and validity of historical proofs for the resurrection? Cornelius Van Til was the pioneer of presuppositional apologetics, and was one of the founding members of Westminster Theological Seminary. The defenses of faith that he developed sought to apply the Reformed tradition to apologetics.



With Easter almost here this year, I was wondering how Van Til would address the resurrection with unbelievers? In particular, did he use historical proofs for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

What was Van Til's view on the use and validity of historical proofs for the resurrection?
Presuppositional apologetics eschews using worldview-neutral facts which other types apologetics such as Evidential apologetics use as common ground for the starting point of the defense of Christianity, especially to non-believers.  So it makes sense for evidential apologetics to start with historically verifiable resurrection event.  This question wonders how would Van Til, as the father of Presuppositional apologetics, would use the Resurrection in their apologetics with non-believers.

A book chapter Resurrection, Proof, and Presuppositionalism - Acts 17:30-31 by Systematic Theology professor Lane G. Tipton published in the 2007 book Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics published by P &amp; R shows how "presuppositional apologetics in the tradition of
Cornelius Van Til" tackles precisely this challenge.

Opening quotes from the book which provides the 5 propositional structure of the strategy:


  The basic contention of this essay is that Paul’s conception of
  the resurrection as proof of final judgment in Acts 17:31b
  depends on revealed categories derived from redemptive history. This
  distinctive approach to proof places the evidential function of the
  resurrection in a redemptive-historical setting and supplies an exegetical
  line of support for presuppositional apologetics in the tradition of
  Cornelius Van Til. Five basic propositions summarize the argument
  developed in this section:
  
  
  Paul the theologian of redemptive history is Paul the apologist
  for the resurrection of Christ.
  Paul provides a covenant-historical conception of proof in 17:31,
  which rests on (a) Christ’s resurrection as an eschatological event, and (b) Christ’s resurrection as a covenantal (or solidaric) event.
  Paul refuses to separate the denotation (fact) of the resurrection
  from the connotation (meaning) of the resurrection, because
  the fact and meaning of the resurrection are covenantally and
  eschatologically qualified.
  As such, Paul’s notion of proof cannot be reduced to an ordinary,
  standard, philosophical conception of proof (e.g., based on rational
  reflection, empirical observation, or pragmatic utility), since it
  rests on revealed categories derived from redemptive history.
  Paul’s argument requires us to rethink or at least reorient
  the discipline of apologetics in light of redemptive-historical
  categories.
  


Conclusion:


  Paul’s argument on Mars Hill therefore lends strong support to the
  development of presuppositional apologetics. A careful analysis of his
  conception of proof gives us an opportunity to enrich apologetics in
  light of redemptive-historically regulated exegesis. As we seize that
  opportunity, the disciplines of biblical and systematic theology will
  stand in a much more organic relationship to our defense of the faith,
  and will place us in a better position to demonstrate the deep lines of
  continuity between Reformed theology and Reformed apologetics.