Cornelius Van Til The Defense of the Faith Lecture 6

Cornelius Van TilThe Defense of the Faith

Lecture 6Prepared by

Dr. Richard Spencer

Review

• Van Til’s most important points so far:

– The Creator/creature distinction is central to our worldview and theology

– The Bible is the ultimate standard for Christians, both for faith and for conduct

– The triune God of the Bible is the only presupposition that makes creation intelligible and logic and science possible

– The only point of contact with the unbeliever is his innate knowledge that God exists and that he is a sinner

• Scriptures to know:

– 1 Cor 10:31, 2 Cor 10:5, 1 Cor 2:14, Jn 3:3, 5, Dt 29:29

Outline

• Background on Van Til, including WTS

• Background – what is a worldview? Why is it important?

• Background – Van Til’s starting point

• Chapter 1, Christian Theology

• Chapters 2 through 4, The Christian Philosophy

• Chapters 5 through 7, Christian Apologetics

• Chapter 8, Common Grace and Scholasticism

Outline

• Christian Apologetics– Chapter 5, Point of Contact

– Chapter 6, The Problem of Method

– Chapter 7, Authority and Reason

Christian Apologetics – Method

• Van Til explains the presuppositional approach:

Shall we in the interest of a point of contact admit that man can interpret anything correctly if he virtually leaves God out of the picture? Shall we who wish to prove that nothing can be explained without God first admit some things at least can be explained without him? On the contrary we shall show that all explanations without God are futile. Only when we do this do we appeal to that knowledge of God within men which they seek to suppress. This is what I mean by presupposing God for the possibility of intelligent predication. DOF, p; 257-258


• Van Til wrote:

the Reformed apologist cannot agree at all with the methodology of the natural man. Disagreeing with the natural man’s interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference point, the Reformed apologist must seek his point of contact with the natural man in that which is beneath the threshold of his working consciousness, in the sense of deity which he seeks to suppress. DOF, pg. 120


• Van Til wrote:

this point of contact must be in the nature of a head-on collision. If there is no head-on collision with the systems of the natural man, there will be no point of contact with the sense of deity in the natural man. DOF, pp 120-121

• But in this “collision” remember what Peter said!

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect


I would not tell an unbeliever that he has no intellectual right to judge the validity of revelation, but you should point out that if he starts with the presupposition that God does not exist and/or has not revealed himself to us in the Bible, then no amount of evidence is ever going to change that view –his presuppositions negate the possibility!

We have the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to illustrate this point. Even if someone returns from the dead they will not believe (Luke 16:31). Also, look at all the people who witnessed Christ perform miraculous healings and yet did not believe. And consider Judas who witnessed so much and yet still did not believe!

• Information alone is not the answer!


• But if we start with the assumption that God doesexist and has revealed himself to us in the Bible, then we find:

– the resulting worldview is consistent and complete

– there is plenty of evidence to corroborate that worldview

• Therefore, it will be apparent that we have no right to stand in judgment over those parts of God’s Word and works that we don't understand


• Van Tile explains in more detail what he means by a presuppositional apologetic:

To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one’s method. DOF, pp 121-122


• Most unbelievers will claim to prefer a “neutral” method of examining the evidence, but:

In spite of this claim to neutrality on the part of the non-Christian the Reformed apologist must point out that everymethod, the supposedly neutral one no less than any other, presupposes either the truth or the falsity of Christian theism. DOF, pg. 122

• In other words, this is not an issue about which you can be truly neutral – the natural man is suppressing the truth and is hostile to God (Rom 8:7)


• Van Til’s method of apologetics is “indirect”

The issue between believers and nonbelievers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to “facts” or “laws” whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debates. The question is rather as to what is the final reference point required to make the “facts” and “laws” intelligible. DOF, pg. 122

• In other words – it is a conflict of worldviews, in particular, the fundamental presuppositions at the core of the worldviews


• We therefore approach the problem indirectly

• The first step is to show the unbeliever that his worldview is inconsistent and incomplete

– To do that, we use his methods – for the sake of argument

• The second step is to show him that the Christian worldview is consistent and complete

– To do that, we ask him to assume our methods


• This method works because God is the self-attesting God!

• We need to confront the unbeliever with his suppression of the truth

– The problem with “classical” apologetics is that, even though reformed believers who use it understand that a person must be born again, they deny the total depravity of man, especially the noetic effects of sin, if they act as if they can reason with him from a neutral point of view, which reinforces the unbeliever’s claim to neutrality and autonomy and does not honor God


• In this discussion, the question of circular reasoning is likely to come up

– The unbeliever may say that it is using circular reasoning to presuppose the existence of God and then conclude that God exists; therefore, he will claim the method is invalid


• Our response is to point out that every defense of any absolute standard for truth is circular

– The unbeliever presupposes that human reason is the ultimate standard for determining truth (this is implicit in his supposedly “neutral” approach), but that presupposition can only be defended by using human reason!


• Bahnsen wrote:

It is only to be expected that, in matters of ultimate commitment, the intended conclusion of one’s line of argumentation will also be the presuppositional standard that governs one’s manner of argumentation for that conclusion – or else the intended conclusion is not his ultimate commitment after all. VA, pp 2-3


• Van Til wrote:

The natural man at bottom knows that he is the creature of God. He knows also that he is responsible to God. He knows that he should live to the glory of God. He knows that in all that he does he should stress that the field of reality which he investigates has the stamp of god’s ownership upon it. But he suppresses his knowledge of himself as he truly is. He is the man with the iron mask. A true method of apologetics must seek to tear off that iron mask. DOF, pg. 124


• The unbeliever’s position is also a mixture of the rational and the irrational

– It is rational because it is based on the use of logic and evidence to determine the truth

– It is irrational because, on the unbeliever’s presuppositions, his own mind and all of the facts he adduces in support of any proposition are the result of “chance”

• What does Van Til mean by “chance”?


• Van Til wrote:

The idea of pure chance has been inherent in every form of non-Christian thought in the past. It is the only logical alternative to the position of Christianity, according to which the plan of God is back of all. DOF, pg. 146

• So, by “chance” Van Til means a world controlled by impersonal physical laws, rather than one created and controlled by God

• But, in such a world, there can be no truly rational creatures to sit around and think about that world!


• Consider what Marvin Minsky, a professor at MIT, wrote:

The physical world provides no room for freedom of will, … [but] that concept is essential to our models of the mental realm. … We’re virtually forced to maintain that belief, even though we know it is false. The Society of Mind, pg. 307

• This is an example of the irrationality of the non-Christian worldview – we should confront unbelievers with these problems

• Let’s see another example …


• In Why Does E = mC2, Cox and Forshaw quote Eugene Wigner stating a position that a number of scientist have expressed (pg. 63):

“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”

• Van Til wrote:

Moreover, God has adapted the objects to the subjects of knowledge; that the laws of our minds and the laws of the facts come into fruitful contact with one another is due to God’s creative work and to his providence DOF, pg. 279


• Van Til deals with two objections that he foresaw would be raised to his method:

The first objection that suggests itself may be expressed in the rhetorical question, Do you mean to assert that non-Christians do not discover truth by the methods they employ? The reply is that we mean nothing so absurd as that. The implication of the method here advocated is simply that non-Christians are never able to, and therefore never do, employ their own methods consistently. DOF, pg. 126

i.e., the God of the Bible is the necessary presupposition. Without him, there is no coherent and adequate explanation for the existence of the universe or of man


The second objection may be voiced in the following words: “While a Christian can prove that his Christian position is fully as reasonable as the opponent’s view, there is no such thing as an absolutely compelling proof that God exists, or that the Bible is the Word of God, just as little as anyone can prove its opposite.” … It is true that no method of argument for Christianity will be acceptable to the natural man. … the Reformed apologist maintains that there is an absolutely valid argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christian theism. He cannot do less without virtually admitting that God’s revelation to man is not clear.

DOF, pg. 126


• Van Til is properly insistent that we must defend Christian theism, not just the existence of somegod

• Therefore, we must bring up the subject of God’s infallible revelation – the Bible


• Van Til wrote:

if the whole debate in apologetics is to be more than a meaningless discussion about the that of God’s existence and is to consider what kind of God exists, then the question of God’s revelation to man must be brought into the picture. … That God meant to bring covenant breakers back into covenant communion with himself through the covenant of grace could in no wise be discovered other than by supernatural redemptive revelation. DOF, pg. 128


• Van Til wrote:

we cannot subject the authoritative pronouncements of Scripture about reality to the scrutiny of reason because it is reason itself that learns of its proper function from Scripture.

… if man is not autonomous, if he is rather what Scripture says he is, namely, a creature of God and a sinner before his face, then man should subordinate his reason to the Scriptures and seek in the light of it to interpret his experience. DOF, pg. 130

Isa 55:9 As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.


• Van Til wrote:

When these matters [i.e., that our reason should be subordinate to God’s revelation] are kept in mind, it will be seen clearly that the true method for any Protestant with respect to the Scripture (Christianity) and with respect to the existence of God (theism) must be the indirect method of reasoning by presupposition. In fact it then appears that the argument for the Scripture as the infallible revelation of God is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the argument for the existence of God. DOF, pg. 130


• Van Til speaks of non-reformed apologetics as building the first-story of the house on the natural man’s presuppositions and then trying to tack on a second story that brings him to biblical Christianity

If the natural man is given permission to draw the floor plan for a house and is allowed to build the first story of the house in accordance with his own blueprint, the Christian cannot escape being controlled in a large measure by the same blueprint when he wants to take over the building of the second story of the house. DOF, pg. 133


• We must be wary of the two-story view of truth, which essentially puts reality on the bottom story and private opinions on the top story

– (see Nancy Pearcey’s book Total Truth, she was a follower of Francis Schaeffer, who was a student of Van Til, although he didn’t faithfully follow Van Til’s apologetic)

• Biblical Christianity is truth, not opinion

Documents

Cornelius Van Til The Defense of the Faith Lecture 6