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 & 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.
