INTRODUCTION
One among the burning
questions amidst the Christian philosophers, which of the many schools is the
most biblical and the most useful to the task of persuasion? We find renewals
in the classical proofs, updates of the ontological and cosmological arguments.
We see many variations of evidentialism, from intelligent design to arguments
from Jesus' trial, the empty tomb, the New Testament documents' trustworthiness,
and so on. And we find various forms of “humble apologetics,” using less
aggressive arguments, such as teaching rather than preaching, clarification
rather than dogmatism, focusing on Jesus and similar approaches. We notice experts
responding Islam and Atheists. And there is lots of eclectic apologetics, using
understandings from many sources, literature and the arts, culture studies, the
sociology of knowledge, and much more. His unique method was called the
"presuppositional" defense of the faith, which is elucidated in this paper.
In its modern form, the pioneers of presuppositionalism include Abraham Kuyper,
H. G. Stoker, Gorden Clark, Cornelius Van Til, and, in their own manner,
Francis Schaeffer, Richard Mouw, John Frame, and Michael Goheen. Van Til is
perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of
defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew
on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman
Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more reliably Christian
methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point
of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between
Christian and non-Christian worldviews. He didn't mainly care for the label
describing his approach as "presuppositional," which more accurately
represents the apologetical method of Gordon Clark, but he (and his students)
accepted it as a matter of agreement because it is at least useful in grouping
methods into those which deny neutrality and those which do not. Van Til's
presuppositional apologetic differs radically from traditional apologetics
(whether empirical, rationalistic, or a combination of both.) Viewing the
Scriptures as self-authenticating, he assumes their truth. ”Van Til’s insights,”
writes John Frame of Westminster Theological Seminary, “are life-transforming
and world-transforming”.[1] “Dr.
Van Til,” says Richard C. Pratt, Jr., is undoubtedly the greatest defender of
the Christian faith in our century.[2] The
prolific author, Rousas Rushdoony, believes that in every area of thought, the
philosophy of Cornelius Van Til is of critical and central importance. Frame
believes that Van Til’s “contribution to theology is of virtually Copernican
dimensions...when one considers the uniqueness of his apologetic position and
then further considers the implications of that apologetic for theology, one
searches for superlatives to describe the significance of Van Til’s overall
approach”.[3] In
another article, Frame describes Van Til as “a thinker of enormous power,
combining unquestioned orthodoxy with dazzling originality, Van Til is perhaps
the most important Christian thinker of the twentieth century. He is
undoubtedly a Kuyperian. In this paper, one major school of apologetics,
Presuppositionalism, is taken up by assessing its logical structure in the
writings of its most well-known proponent, Cornelius Van Til. The author's
conclusion with regard to Van Til's presuppositionalism is that the Christian's
apologetic task has been greatly discouraged, in effect, by the replacement of
that task with an obscure philosophy about reason-giving.
1. LIFE
AND WORK OF CORNELIUS VAN TIL
1.1
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Van Til was born on May
3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands. He was the sixth son of Ite and
Klazina Van Til, who immigrated to the United States when Kees, as he was known
to friends, was ten. He grew up assisting on the family farm in Highland,
Indiana. He went on to get an advanced education when he saw the necessity to
meet unbelief on its own ground and in the most thorough terms. Years later he
said, study was not easy for him. Having grown up on the farm he was used to
weeding onions and carrots and cabbages. It was hard to adjust to classroom
work; I had labored physically and my body was aching for that."[4] He
was married to Rena Klooster in 1925 and they had one son, Earl, who died in
1983. Van Til is survived by a grand-daughter, Sharon Reed of Valencia, PA.
1.2 Ministry
He was graduated from
Calvin College (A.B., 1922), Princeton Theological Seminary (Th.B., 1924;
Th.M., 1925) and Princeton University (Ph.D. 1927). He worked as the pastor of
the Christian Reformed Church in Spring Lake, MI, 1927-28 and was instructor of
apologetics at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1928-29. [5]
After serving for one
year as a minister, in 1928, van Til was offered a position to teach
Apologetics at Princeton University. He was able to get a one year leave of
absence from his church, and went back to academia, an environment, he had
missed during his small town ministry. After one year of teaching, in 1929, he
had planned to return to his Spring Lake congregation. But there was another
surprise. Princeton offered him a professorship in Apologetics, an offer that
one would think was difficult to turn down. He, did, however, turn down the
offer, but not because he felt a need to return to his congregation.
Princeton’s School of Theology was going through a religious modernization
phase, and the religious orientation was drastically shifting to the modernistic
side from the historically more conservative side. After a brief stay with his
Spring Lake congregation, van Til joined three other former Princeton faculty
members to found the Westminster Theological Seminary, a religiously
conservative seminary, in suburban Philadelphia. And that is where he would
teach for the next 51 years, from 1929 to 1979. He retired in 1972, but kept
teaching until 1979, when he had reached the age of 84.
Presuppositional
apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational
basis for Christian faith. It defends the faith against objections, and exposes
the perceived flaws of other world views, and it is primarily based on the
preeminence of the Bible, as the criterion for truth. Other types of apologetics
are Thomistic Apologetics, based on logical proofs of the existence of God, and
Evidential Apologetics, based on archaeological, historical and scientific
evidence to support the probable existence of God.[6] Van
Til’s presuppositional apologetics is clearly the religiously more conservative
in its approach. And he would defend his view of Apologetics, for the remainder
of his academic career by way of numerous publications. Van Til had adopted a
methodology from one of his professors at Princeton, Professor A.A. Bowman.[7] The
strength of the methodology was its consistency, and van Til would use that
methodology throughout his numerous publications to make his theological
arguments against many of his critics.
1.2
Major Works
Van Til’s publications
are too numerous to list here. Some of the more important ones are:
“A Survey of Christian
Epistemology”, “Introduction to Systematic Theology”, “Common Grace and the
Gospel”, “A Christian Theory of Knowledge”, “The Defense of the Faith”, “The
Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought”, “Christian Theistic Evidences”, “The
Doctrine of Scripture”, “The Sovereignty of Grace: An Appraisal of G. C.
Berkouwer’s View of Dordt”, “The New Synthesis Theology of the Netherlands”,
“The Case for Calvinism”, “Essays on Christian Education”, “Psychology of
Religion”, “The New Hermeneutics”, “The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel”,
“Why I Believe in God”, “Paul at Athens”, and “Karl Barth and Evangelicalism”.[8]
In addition to his
publications there have been a number of books about van Til. They are: “Van
Til: Defender of the Faith: An Authorized Biography”, by William White, Jr.,
“Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics
of Cornelius van Til”, edited by E.R. Geehan, “Cornelius van Til, An Analysis of
his Thought”, by John Frame, “Van Til’s Apologetics: Readings and Analysis”, by
Greg Bahnsen, “For a Time Such as This: An Introduction to the Reformed
Apologetics of Cornelius van Til”, by J. S. Halsey, and “By What Standard?: An
Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius van Til”, by R. J. Rushdoony. Most of
the publications in the above two paragraphs were published by Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and some by Eerdman’s
Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.[9]
1.4 Later Life and Demise
Van Til received two
honorary degrees. The University of Potchefstroom in South Africa awarded him
an honorary doctorate degree in Theology, and the Reformed Episcopal Seminary
in Philadelphia awarded him an honorary doctorate degree in Divinity. During
his 51 year tenure at Westminster Theological Seminary, van Til also served as
an ordained minister in an Orthodox Presbyterian church in the Philadelphia
area. Cornelius van Til was married to Rena Klooster in September 1925. The
couple had one son and they named him Earl. Earl passed away before his father
died, in 1982. Earl left his father a granddaughter, named Sharon Reed. Van
Til’s wife, Rena, passed away in 1978. Van Til outlived her by nine years,
passing away on April 17, 1987, at the advanced age of 91 years, about two
weeks short of his 92nd birthday. He had lived a rich life, and had made many
contributions to the religiously conservative Presbyterian and Reformed faith.[10]
2. PRESUPPOSITIONALISM
Presuppositionalism is a
school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only
basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation
and tries to uncover errors in other worldviews. It claims that apart from
presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there
can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.
Presuppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare his
belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously
argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and
Biblical revelation may not be true. [11] Two
schools of presuppositionalism exist, based on the different teachings of
Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Haddon Clark. Presuppositionalism contrasts with
classical apologetics and evidential apologetics.
2.1 VAN TILLIAN PRESUPPOSITIONALISM
Van Tillian presuppositionalists
treats the Bible is the sole arbiter of whether a proposition is true or false;
as a result, all knowledge claims must be given Biblical justification. They
cannot be known independently of the Bible.
The laws of logic and
causality are considered as true but not foundational. Rather, apologists
assert that those propositions are true if and only if the truth of the Bible
has been granted. In this argument, the basic laws of logic must be supported
by Biblical justification. Apologists claim there are decisive proofs of the
existence of God based on logic. However, Van Tillian presuppositionalism draws
a difference between proof and persuasion. Van Til identifies that many of
these proofs are not pragmatically persuasive. Van Til asserts that this is
because the skeptic rejects the epistemological framework (Platonic
epistemology) necessary for the acceptance of those proofs. Van Til supporting
Platonic epistemology as the only epistemology that is Biblically strong. Plato's
epistemology differs from Van Til's in one very vital respect: Plato does not
accept the Bible as the foundation of his epistemology. For Plato, the Forms
are foundational, and there is no text which can converse the forms to
individuals. For Van Til, the Forms are secondary to the belief in God and the
truth of the Bible, and belief in the Forms is justified by the Bible.[12]
2.1.1. Transcendental Argument of Van Til
Van Til and those who
closely follow him hold that apologetic argument must be transcendental. He
also calls it “reasoning by presupposition”.[13] A
transcendental argument tries to show the conditions that make anything what it
is, mainly the conditions or presuppositions necessary for rational thought.
This understanding of apologetics underscores Van Til’s conviction that the
Christian God is not merely another fact to be discovered alongside the ones we
already know, but is the fact from whom all other facts derive their meaning
and intelligibility.
Van Til was convinced
that his transcendental argument was very different from traditional proofs for
God’s existence and the common treatments of the historical evidences for
Christianity. He speaks of his argument as “indirect rather than direct”[14], as
a reductio ad absurdum of the non-Christian’s position, rather than a
direct proof of the Christian’s. He intends to show that the alternatives to
Christian theism destroy all meaning and intelligibility, and, of course, that
Christian theism establishes these. These statements, however, raise some
questions:
·
Is it possible for an apologist to
refute all the alternatives to Christian theism? Van Til thought that it is
possible, for in the final analysis there is only one alternative. Either the
biblical God exists or he doesn’t. And if he doesn’t, Van Til claims, there can
be no meaning or intelligibility.
·
Is a negative or reductio argument
the only way to show that Christian theism alone grounds intelligibility? Van
Til thought it was. But (a) if, say, Thomas Aquinas was successful in showing
that that the causal order begins in God, then God is the source of everything,
including the intelligibility of the universe. Aquinas’s argument, then, though
it is positive rather than negative, proves Van Til’s transcendental
conclusion. And (b) if, say, physical law is unintelligible apart from the
biblical God, why should we not say that physical law implies the existence of
God? In that way, any transcendental argument can be formulated as a positive
proof.
·
Is the transcendental argument a
simplification of apologetics? Presuppositionalists sometimes seem to suggest
that with the transcendental argument in our arsenal we need not waste time on
theistic proofs, historical evidences, detailed examinations of other views,
and the like. But presuppositionalists, like all apologists, have to answer
objections. If the apologist claims that physical law is unintelligible without
the biblical God, he will have to explain why he thinks that. What other
possible explanations are there for the consistency of physical law? What does
each of them lack? How does the Christian view supply what is lacking in the
other explanations?[15]
Thus the
presuppositional transcendental argument can become as complicated as more
traditional arguments. And the presuppositionalist may often find himself or herself
arguing in much the same way traditional apologists have. So there is not much
difference here.
2.2 CLARKIAN PRESUPPOSITIONALISM
Gordon Haddon Clark
(1902-1985) was the Chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University
for 28 years. He along with the Van Til were the two greatest champions of the
presuppositional method of apologetics. In this portion, Clark’s apologetic views
will be examined, and the strengths and weaknesses of these views will be
discussed.[16]
Clark states that the
worldview that results from the acceptance of the Biblical axiom can be tested
for consistency and completeness. Clark opined the truth of the Bible as though
it were one of the axioms of a logical system. Other logical standards may be
foundational, as long as they are attuned with the Bible. Clark focused on indicating
that there are no inconsistencies or ambiguities which can be produced by
accepting the Bible as true, and holds the probability of using formal logic as
a method for testing the propositions in order to guarantee this.[17]
Because the Bible is foundational to a logical system, if any other logical
rule produces any contradiction, then that logical rule must be disallowed. The
notion that the Bible should be scrutinized for probable contradictions appeals
some criticism from the Van Tillian branch, because they feel that the Bible
should not be weighed against logical axioms. If an axiom is found to,
hypothetically, shows a contradiction within the Bible, then the problem is the
axiom.[18]
Because Clark accepts that the laws of logic have bearing on falsifying the
Bible, Van Tillian's often argue that this is not a candid sort of
presuppositionalism, and that it puts the laws of logic on the same
foundational basis as the Bible.
2.2.1 Merits of Clarkian Presuppositionalism
Gordon Clark, as his scholarship
shows, was an actual thinker. Even if one differs with much of what he has spoken,
he has made an incredible contribution to Christian thought that should not be left
unnoticed. His denial of pure rationalism. Clark in a sense, is correct when he
highlights the major weakness of rationalism. That is, rationalism cannot even
get started until definite unconfirmed assumptions are made. Reason cannot
prove everything. This would result in an infinite regress, and nothing
would be established. First principles must be presupposed. They are not
logically necessary (they cannot be proven with rational certainty).[19] Then
comes his refusal of pure empiricism. Again Clark in a sense right when he points
out difficulties with extreme empiricism. Sense data and the facts of history
do not come with their own built-in interpretations. They must be interpreted
within the setting of a person’s world view. Empirical data alone cannot give
us rational deductions.
Clark’s acknowledgement
of the fact that all people have presuppositions. Too often Christians pretend
that they have no predispositions whatsoever, but this is not the case. Every
person, believer and nonbeliever alike, has presuppositions that are often unseen.
Clark was right in his view that apologetics is more accurately the seeking of
confirmation for our presuppositions than it is the unbiased search for truth. His
use of the law of noncontradiction. Clark was justified in his usage of the law
of noncontradiction. If two opposite concepts can both be true at the same time
and in the same sense, then all knowledge and communication become impossible.
Any world view that either is a contradiction or generates contradictions is
not worth believing. He is very
consistent in his Calvinism. Too often Christians claim to be Calvinists but essentially
deny or redefine some of the five points of Calvinism. Clark is not only a
strong defender of all five points, but he also unfailingly holds to the
implications of these points. His rejection of human free will and his view of
God as the ultimate cause of evil are unpopular concepts, even among
Calvinists. Clark is to be credited with having the bravery to believe that
which is consistent with his system of thought. [20] Clark
recognizes that since all secular philosophies have failed to justify their
truth claims, man must make a choice. A person can choose to continue to live
with inconsistent views. Or a person can choose skepticism and suspend all
judgment (except his judgment to be skeptical). Clark even notes that, for some,
suicide is their choice. But Clark
pleads with his readers to choose Christianity. If secular philosophies have
failed to find truth and give meaning to life, then why not choose
Christianity? Whatever the case, man must choose.
2.2.2 Demerits of Clarkian Presuppositionalism
Though Clark is right
when he states that concepts such as moral values, causality, time, and space
cannot be derived from sense data alone, he goes too far away when he speaks of
the “futility of sensation.” With
Clark’s distrust for sense experience, how can he presuppose the truth of the
Bible? For he must first use his sense of sight to read the Bible to discover
what it is he is going to presuppose. In fact, the Bible itself seems to show
the basic reliability of sense perception. The Mosaic Law places great importance
on eyewitness testimony, and the eyewitness accounts of Christ’s
post-resurrection appearances are offered as evidence for the truth of Christ’s
statements.[21]
His rejection of Thomistic first principles. While contradicting rationalism,
Clark stated that it needed first principles. For justification must stop
somewhere. He pointed out that since first principles could not be established
through reason alone, rationalism fails to find truth without appealing to
something other than reason. The first principles are not logically necessary.
In this he is correct. However, Clark admits the law of contradiction (what
Thomists call the law of noncontradiction), though he says it is not logically
necessary. However, this is the same type of argument that Aquinas (and
Aristotle long before him) used for his remaining first principles. Besides the
principle of noncontradiction, Aquinas utilized the principles of identity, excluded
middle, causality, and finality. Aristotle and Aquinas argued that these
principles “cannot actually be denied without absurdity.” In other words, they
are actually undeniable (though not logically necessary). But this is very parallel
to what Clark claims for one of his first principles, the law of contradiction.
If Clark is justified in using this principle, then the other Thomistic first
principles of knowledge may likewise be justified. If one accepts the principle
of causality (every effect has an adequate cause), then one can reason from the
effect (the finite world) to its cause (the infinite Creator). This would give
Clark’s whole system a fatal blow since it would justify the use of traditional
arguments for God’s existence. This would abolish presuppositional apologetics
as the only way for a Christian to defend his faith.[22]
Norman Geisler,
following in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas, uses the principle of actual
undeniability. Some things cannot be denied without contradiction and therefore
must be true. For instance, if I deny my existence I must first exist to make
the denial. For nothing is nothing. Nothing cannot deny anything. Only an
existent being can deny something. Therefore, it is actually undeniable that I
exist. Charles Hodge based his philosophical arguments on what he believed were
self-evident truths. Though these truths could be denied by others, their denial
is forced and temporary.
The Augustinian
approach, in the opinion of many Christian philosophers, is to be preferred.
Augustine held that God gave man the freedom to disobey His commands.
Therefore, God permitted sin; it was not part of His perfect will for man. A
free will theodicy (attempting to propose a reason why God permitted evil) or a
free will defense (attempting to merely show that it is not impossible for an
all-good and all-powerful God to coexist with evil) is a much more plausible
solution to the problem of evil than the solution Clark proposed. Of course,
since Clark denied genuine free will, these possibilities were not open to him.
3. STRENGTH
OF PRESUPPOSITIONALISM
Despite presuppositionalist’s
blunders in forming philosophical foundation, they have some merits to be
considered seriously. Some of those are their emphasis on
(a) The noetic
influence of sin (sin's effect on the mind);
(b) The non-neutrality
of worldviews (they are heart-commitments); and
(c) The need for the
Spirit's work for faith to take root in one's heart.
4. COMBINING PRINCETON AND AMSTERDAM IN
APOLOGETICS
In the foundation of Til’s
system, he has attempted to compromise between two contradictory viewpoints,
i.e. Kuyperianism and what he calls the apologetics of Old Princeton. History
tells us that Van Til was born in Holland in 1895, came to the USA as a boy,
and later received his theological training in the Princeton tradition. Thus he
attempted to bring together the two systems. Van Til himself tells us, “There
were two considerations that compelled me finally to seek a combination of some
of the elements of each position.” (i.e. Kuyper and Princeton).[23] In
the context, as noted above, one of the two considerations was Kuyper’s
doctrine that the natural man ‘does not have any knowledge of the truth’. The
other was: “Positively Hodge and Warfield were right in stressing the fact that
Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason”. Van Til says that the
evidences of Christianity (in his own version of them, please note) can be
apprehended by sanctified reason, but not unequivocally by fallen reason. Of
course Van Til conveys his view of the alleged rational incapability of the
unbeliever beyond the first truths of religion to incorporate the knowledge of
what we term natural things also, and he does not allow the distinction of
religious knowledge from natural knowledge.[24]
5. FOUR
MAJOR CRITICISM OF PRESUPPOSITIONALISM
5.1 INVALIDATING THE THEISTIC PROOFS
Van Til’s doctrine on
the theistic proofs is confusing and difficult to follow. He has not rejected
them outright, as above, but has attempted to mould them into conformity with
his system. They (the theistic proofs) are true when they reflect scriptural
procedure. And scriptural procedure involves making the ontological trinity the
foundation of all predication. But these arguments have often been stated
otherwise. In the first place men have often formulated them and built them
upon the assumption of man as autonomous will. Now it is the difference between
theistic proofs when rightly and when wrongly constructed, that I have been
anxious to stress. To regard revelation and regeneration as conditions
necessary for the validation of his version of the a priori ontological
theistic proof, is also contradictory and unreasonable. For these conditions he
requires are both a posteriori and empirical. Revelation is given in experience
and regeneration occurs in experience. As has been argued, neither is necessary
to validate the empirical proofs. Whether the a priori ontological proof
(alluded to above by Van Til when he refers to the ‘Cartesian idea’) has any
validity has been a contentious issue in the history of Christian theology.
5.2 LOGICAL FALLACY
It engages in
question-begging-assuming what one wants to prove. It begins with the
assumption that God exists, and then concludes that God exists. Such reasoning
would get you an “F” in any logic class worthy of the name! [Note: For a
broader critique of Frame's starting points, see Harold A. Netland,
“Apologetics, Worldviews, and the Problem of Neutral Criteria,” Trinity Journal
12/1 (Spring 1991): 39-58.] While we begin our worldview examination from
somewhere, universal logical laws like the law of non-contradiction or excluded
middle are inescapable for assessing and critiquing worldviews.[25] In
his debate with Henry, Hackett said that without some set of “neutral criteria”
that are logically prior to consent or commitment to a particular worldview,
“there is no way to show that one worldview perspective is more plausible than
another” since both parties are “starting from totally different assumptions.” Indeed,
the statements of Scripture themselves presuppose the validity of logical laws
of non-contradiction and excluded middle; they also appeal to criteria beyond
Scripture, the court of appeals of historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection
(1 Cor. 15:1-19), things that were not done in a corner (Acts 26:26).
5.3 DISMISSAL OF COMMON GROUND
Second, Christians
share common ground with unbelievers, who are likewise made in God's image,
which is not erased by the fall. Someone has said, “A person who believes in
total depravity can't be all that bad!” Yet in some Reformed circles, the
doctrine of total depravity seems to leave no trace of the imago Dei. The
Scriptures affirm otherwise (Gen. 9:6), and God can and does speak to
unbelievers through reason, beauty, moral failure, and the existence of evil.
As a cloud of apologetical witnesses can testify, God has used philosophical
arguments for his existence, scientific supports for the universe's beginning
(Big Bang) and its fine-tuning, and historical evidences for the resurrection
of Jesus to assist people in embracing Christ—-just as God uses the preaching
of the gospel (Romans 1:16) or the loving character of a Christian community
(John 13:35). These are all part of the holistic witness to the reality of God
and the gospel, all of which the Spirit of God can use to lead unbelievers to
embracing Jesus Christ.[26]
The apostle James
teaches this clearly, “Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
also believe and tremble.” James 2:19. To the unregenerate king, Agrippa, Paul
says, “Believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” Acts 26:27.
Paul’s bold remark includes the affirmation of their common agreement in this
belief. Paul also, in a spirit of gracious acknowledgment, intrinsic to the
glorious gospel of peace, and quite contrary to the aggressive unfriendliness
of Kuyperianism to the lost, over whom Christ would rather weep, affirmed
common ground with the Greeks in Athens, when he said, “As certain also of your
own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” Acts 17:28. A gracious
argumentum ad hominem, to which he rejoins his agreement, “Forasmuch then as we
(i.e. you and I, attested to by your own poets) are the offspring of God.”
Verse 29. Jesus’ gracious and encouraging remark to a scribe, not yet a
Christian, clearly acknowledges this man’s reasoning ability, “And when Jesus
saw that he answered discreetly, he said to him, Thou art not far from the kingdom
of God.” Mark 12:34. The context shows Jesus agreement with this as yet unregenerate
scribe in their common affirmation of the two great commandments.[27]
5.4 DISMISSAL OF NATURAL THEOLOGY
Van Til’s rejection of
natural theology is a corollary of his similar attitude to the traditional theistic
proofs. Natural theology is defined as the study of those truths discoverable
by the light of nature concerning God’s existence and attributes, that He ought
to be worshipped, and His righteous judgment against sin. The following is a
specimen of Van Til’s opinion on this subject: “Paul does not teach natural theology
in the first chapter of Romans.” Toward a Reformed Apologetic, page 12. As above,
we thought Paul did when he said in verses 20 and 32 respectively, “They (the heathen)
knew God”, and “Who (the heathen) knowing the judgment of God.” (Emphases mine).
Again, as above, Van Til is simply engaging in a rationalistic Arian-type
denial of the force of Scripture to preserve at all costs the objectionable
Kuyperian theory. With subtlety Van Til accepts that there is “natural
revelation”, see Apologetics, pages 34 to 37, which is the witness to God in
the creation, but because he denies competent rational ability to unconverted
man he denies that there can be a natural theology developed by man. Third,
some (not all) presuppostionalists seem inconsistent about natural theology.
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga describes the attitude of Reformed theologians
toward theistic arguments as ranging from “indifference, through suspicion and
hostility, to outright accusations of blasphemy.”[28]
Dabney then gives four
reasons for the value of studying Natural Theology: “1. It teaches some truths;
and no truth is valueless. 2. When Revelation comes, Natural Theology gives satisfaction
to the mind, by showing us two independent lines of proof for sundry great propositions.
3. It excites the craving of the soul for a Revelation. 4. When that comes, it assists
us to verify it, because it meets the very wants which Natural Theology has discovered.”
We readily acknowledge that Natural Theology cannot save, but this does not
justify obliterating it altogether, as Van Til has done. Of those who have
rejected natural theology Dabney says, “These divines seem to fear lest, by granting
a Natural Theology, they should grant too much to natural reason; a fear ungrounded
and extreme. They are in danger of a worse consequence; reducing man’s capacity
for receiving divine verities so low, that the rational sceptic will be able to
turn on them and say: ‘Then by so inept a creature, the guarantees of a true
revelation cannot be certainly apprehended.’[29]
Typically, these
presuppositionalists (e.g., Bahnsen) avoid traditional cosmological (causal),
teleological (design), and moral arguments, but they enthusiastically endorse
the transcendental argument for God (TAG)—-the argument to show that God is the
inevitable ground for all rational thought. This strikes me as a distinction
without a difference: why couldn't God use TAG just as he uses other natural
theological arguments? Furthermore, why the Christian God and not the God of
the Qur'an as the ground for rational thought?
5.5 NEGATION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL PROOF
The one traditional
proof that we believe does not succeed is in fact the ontological proof. It is
not a proof, but an attempt to justify a dogmatic assertion that God is. Please
note that Van Til does not accept the traditional ontological proof per se,
e.g. as articulated by Des Cartes and before him Anselm, because he insists
that Scripture’s testimony to God as the Trinity, as above, is required for a
valid statement of this proof. Van Til does not allow that reason of itself can
construct any Theistic proof, even though it be the ontological proof favoured
by him there is the opinion that has been held as a rule by conservative
evangelicals historically. Following Romans chapter 1, we believe that the
non-Christian is able thereby to acknowledge the existence of God. Van Til, who
is most reluctant to grant unequivocal valid ability to man’s rational faculty,
rejects this and resorts to an innate a priori assertion with respect to the
existence of God, and which is peculiar to Christians, controlled by Scripture
and regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Thus when Van Til talks about revelation
without and within man manifesting God, he means men come to know of God’s
existence, not by a posteriori inference from the things that are made, and
man’s own religious and moral nature, but by an alleged a priori assertion,
which requires Scripture and regeneration for unequivocal validation.
CONCLUSION
To begin with,
presuppositionalism is not a great word. It implies circular reasoning, or
worse, fideism, a leap of faith. A better choice might be “covenantal
apologetics.” The idea is that the apologist begins by frankly acknowledging
divine condescension.
Unlike the classical
approach, which begins with a logical demonstration, or the evidentialist view,
which appeals directly to the facts, covenantal apologetics begins
(positionally, not in every conversation) with the authority of divine
revelation.
One of its slogans in
that there is no neutrality. If you appeal to logical demonstrations you may be
ignoring the doctrine of the “noetic effects of sin,” that is, the fallenness
of reason. If you appeal to the empty tomb or to “irreducible complexity,” you
may be ignoring the human tendency to observe the world with prejudice, or what
James K. A. Smith calls the fall of interpretation.
Clark’s
presuppositional approach to apologetics, with minor adaptions, is a worthy
apologetic. Uncovering contradictions in non-Christian belief systems is a
necessary component in one’s defense of the faith. However, Clark’s
presuppositional approach is not the only method Christians can use when
defending the faith.
Although Clark
successfully demolishes several secular philosophies, traditional apologetics
survives his assault. These then are my concerns with presuppositionalism.
Though it gives us important insights, it falls short at a number of points as
a viable apologetical methodology.
[1]
Richard Pratt, Every Thought Captive (Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1979), 11.
[2] John
W. Robbins, “Cornelius Van Til” http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=33#sthash.lXugveWy.dpuf
(accessed
11/07/2015)
[3]Brian K. Morley,
Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches (USA: Inter
Varsity Press 2015), 65-67.
[4] Laurence
O’Donnell, Kees Van Til als Nederlandse-Amerikaanse,
Neo-Calvinistisch-Presbyteriaan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 97.
[5] Cornelius van
Til, http://www.newnetherlandinstitute.org/history-and-heritage/dutch_americans/cornelius-van-til/ (accessed 11/07/2015)
[6] James Emery
White, What Is Truth?: A Comparative Study of the Positions of Cornelius Van
Til
(Eugene: WIPF Publication, 1994), 36-37.
[7] Michael Joseph
McVicar, Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious
Conservatism (North Carolina: University Press, 2015), 38-40.
[8]
McVicar, Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious
Conservatism, 45.
[9]
O’Donnell, Kees Van Til als Nederlandse-Amerikaanse,
Neo-Calvinistisch-Presbyteriaan, 110.
[10] Kenneth Boa,
Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to
Defending the Christian Faith, (USA: Inter Varsity, 2001), 26.
[11] Owen Anderson, Reason
and Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til and Plantinga (USA: University
Press America, 2008), 5-6.
[12] Gary J.
Dorrien, The Remaking of Evangelical Theology (Kentucky: Palm Poll,
1998), 225.
[13] David
l. Turner, ”Cornelius Van Til and Romans 1:18-21: A study in the epistemology
of Presuppositional apologetics” Grace Theological Journal 2.1 (1981) 45-58. https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/gtj-nt/turner-rom1-gtj-81.pdf
(accessed 11/07/2015)
[14] Turner,
“Cornelius Van Til and Romans 1:18-21: A study in the epistemology of
Presuppositional apologetics”, 51.
[15] Scott
Oliphint, “The Consistency of Van Til's Methodology” https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjfrZqJtKAhXH5xoKHWqpDR0QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wts.edu%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2FOliphint%2FConsistency%2520of%2520VT%27s%2520method%2520WTJ.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFHi4_HBmBh0KMR3Lkd35ErHHa2fg&sig2=SUJ0kW0yOF-0R6o-T4KnWw (accessed
12/08/2015)
[16] Anderson, Reason
and Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til and Plantinga, 9.
[17] D. R.
Trethewie, “A Critique of Cornelius Van Til: Being a Defense of Traditional
Evidential Christian Apologetics,” A Paper presented at the Reforming and
Congregational Church, http://members.tripod.com/~quick_geelong/Docs/Critique_of_Van_Til.pdf
(19/08/2015)
[18] John
M. Frame, “Van Til: a Reassessment: An Essay”
http://reformedperspectives.org/articles/joh_frame/Frame.Apologetics2004.VanTilReconsidered.pdf
(accessed 15/08/2015)
[19] Richard
L. Pratt, Jr. “Common Misunderstandings of Van Til’s Apologetics” http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.Pratt.VanTil.2.html
(accessed 15/08/2015)
[20] Chris
Sinkinson, Christian Confidence: An Introduction to Defending the Faith (USA: Inter Varsity Press, 2012), 65.
[21] C.
Matthew McMahon, The Two Wills of God (Florida: Puritan Publication,
2005), 52.
[22]Phil
Fernandes, “Gordon Clark” http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/1997/05/gordon-clark/
(accessed 15/08/2015)
[23] [n.a.]
Common Grace and the Gospel (New Jersey: Presbyterian And Reformed
Publishing Co, 1977), 184.
[24] Eric
H. Sigward, “Van Til Made Me Reformed” http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH04/10b.html
(accessed 17/08/2015)
[25] Greg
Bahnsen, Van Til's "Presuppositionalism” http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA195.htm
(accessed 20/08/2015)
[26] Richard L.
Pratt, Jr., “Common Misunderstandings of Van Til’s Apologetics” https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjZ_Pb3rvXKAhUFLhoKHajOASwQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thirdmill.org%2Ffiles%2Fenglish%2Fhtml%2Fth%2FTH.h.Pratt.VanTil.1.html&usg=AFQjCNG-I3s4lu0zULxrURZpAPgNT0CY3A&sig2=AuzOgDtruhbOabojylUePQ (accessed
22/08/2015)
[27] Paul Copan, “Questioning
Presuppositionalism” http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/questioning-presuppositionalism/
(accessed 24/08/2015)
[28] Phil Fernandes
"Gorden Clark" http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/1997/05/gordon-clark/
(accessed
24/08/2015)
[29] “Cornelius Van
Til Collection of Articles From 1920–1939”
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWp5KusPXKAhVMVRQKHZUuDQgQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monergism.com%2Fthethreshold%2Fsdg%2Fvantil%2Fvan-til-collection-of-articles-from-1920-1939.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGA7PM9mjiwu-r1ZTKAShVLI-H6xQ&sig2=4OBnYP0shKQ-3UZi084TBg (accessed
24/08/2015)
