Contact: nikhilrajgupta09@gmail.com

Love in the Supreme Ethics

Thursday, 29 September 2016

CORNELIUS VAN TIL: AN ASSESSMENT OF PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

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.

[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.
[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)




[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)

[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)

0 comments: