By Shane Kastler
Christian Apologetics (i.e., the defense of the faith) is a hot topic right now with the release of the new movie "God's Not Dead." While I have not seen the movie yet; I am always encouraged by an interest in the things of God. And especially to something that might lead to an increase in heartfelt evangelism.
With that said, recently I listened to a lecture by theologian R.C. Sproul where he critiques the Presuppositional Apologetics of the late Cornelius Van Til by stating that Van Til engages in “circular reasoning." In other words, Sproul states that Presuppositionalism insists the unbeliever presuppose God's existence then the Christian will argue for God's existence from that point. It would be like me trying to convince you that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time; but insisting that before we debate that you agree with me that this is so. Then once you concede this truth from the start; I will THEN convince you. From an argumentation standpoint that might sound absurd to you. And it is. But this is not really what Presuppositionalism teaches and, of course this is not really what Van Til taught either. Rather Presuppositionalism teaches that man SHOULD begin with the existence of God and the reason that sinful man does not begin there is because he “suppresses the truth” of God in his unrighteousness. (Romans 1:18)
In his famous 1985 debate with atheist Gordon Stein; the presuppositional apologist
Greg Bahnsen (1947-1995) repeatedly pointed out to Stein that his very use of logic, science, reason, and morality presupposed the existence of God because logic, science, reason, and morality could not exist without God's order being imposed upon the universe. For example, morality exists because God determines right from wrong and on some level, even man in his morally fallen condition knows this through his conscience. One of the ways in which sinful man suppresses his knowledge of God's existence is through his very use of reason, which is itself given to him by God. Van Til used the analogy that for man to use reason to argue against God's existence would be like a child sitting on his father's lap then slapping him in the face. The only way the child can reach the father's face is by the father's support. He then uses that support to insult(or in the case of the atheist: deny the very existence of) the Father.
Another mistake Sproul makes in his criticism of Presuppositionalism is that he insists that the starting point for the sinner is “self-consciousness” rather than “God-consciousness.” In this argument, Sproul declares that no one begins with God as their starting point; but rather everyone begins with themselves and their own existence. While it might, in some ways, be conceded that sinful man begins with himself; I believe Sproul is in error in assuming that the Christian apologist should ALLOW the unbeliever to do this. The role of the apologist is not to help the atheist along in their rejection of God; but rather to point out the fallacy of their starting place. The unbeliever is incorrect; indeed sinful, to reject God and to acknowledge “self” as the starting point. And far from saying and even affirming the unbeliever's tendency to do this, the Christian should refute it. Refute it in love; but refute it nonetheless.
I suspect that most Presuppositional apologists like Van Til and Bahnsen would agree with Classical Apologists like Sproul in saying that man's reason is flawed because of the sin curse. The difference is that the presuppositionalist will not allow the unbeliever to continue on in his delusional state; while the classical apologist will at least for a time. With that in mind, presuppositionalism seems to be the line of argument that scripture itself uses with the unbeliever. The same Apostle Paul who wrote Romans 1:18 about the sinner “suppressing the truth” also declared that all men everywhere were without excuse “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.” (Romans 1:20-22 NASB)
This would seem to indicate that Paul's apologetic methodology differs from Sproul's; and that the Van Tilian model would be much more “Pauline” in nature and thus much more Biblical. Paul doesn't tell the sinner that they should begin with “self consciousness” and reason out from there to the existence of God. He declares quite clearly; that deep down they know full well God exists. And that they suppresses this truth in sinful fashion.
This very same presuppositional approach is what Paul uses in Athens on Mars Hill. He doesn't encourage the pagan philosophers to start with self and reason out. To the contrary, he begins with God, by pointing out that though their polytheism was deeply flawed there was a kernel of truth within it. Even THEY knew that God existed and had even gone so far as to erect an altar “to the unknown God.” (Acts 17:23) Paul then uses this presuppositional “God-consciousness” to tell them the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this regard it appears the Athenian pagans had one step up on the atheist because they at least acknowledged the supernatural and the existence of a God (or gods). But in truth, the atheist is aware of God also. He just suppresses it. And at the end of the day regardless of whether or not it's a polytheistic pagan or an intellectual atheist: both will perish in Hell apart from a supernatural change of heart, mind, and spiritual direction. And therein lies the true heart of apologetics. Man is sinful and God is the only one who can save him.
Some would say that all apologetics is, to some extent, fideism. That apart from faith (i.e., believing in that which cannot be seen) nothing can be known of God. And while this is true in part (we believe what we cannot see – Hebrews 11:1); it is equally true that the belief in the Christian God is not irrational at all. In fact, the Triune God can be “clearly seen through what has been made” (Romans 1:22) so that men are without excuse. He has further revealed himself through the Scriptures, which He graciously gave to a sinful humanity that did not deserve them. And furthermore, “In these last days has spoken to us through His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” (Hebrews 1:2)
It is beyond refute that sinful people need supernatural help to know God. It is equally beyond refute that sinful people are “without excuse” for their rejection of what is “clearly seen.” While these two truths might seem irreconcilable to the finite mind of man; they are intensely Biblical; and thoroughly true.
In conclusion, I would argue that there is much agreement between Sproul and Van Til on the sinful and depraved condition of man. The disagreement between these two apologetic camps is not so much where the sinner begins, but rather where the apologist does. It's not so much where the the unbeliever starts, but where the Christian should initially lead him. Should the apologist let him continue to use his God-given reason to deny God's existence by beginning with self consciousness and moving out to God consciousness? Or should the apologist begin by refuting the unbeliever's denial of what is patently obvious. And point him toward the very irrationality of his so called reason?
In the end, both the Classical and the Presuppositional apologist can agree that the Christian's charge is to share the gospel of Christ and that the Holy Spirit must grant a new birth for a sinner to believe it. It's very much an “in house” debate among brethren as to what the best and most Biblical method is for going about this. While the unbeliever's “house of cards” needs to be assaulted with Scripture and with reason. And many chinks in their brick facade might be attained by pointing out evidence for God's existence. The ultimate, primary, and initial line of assault upon the unbeliever's lack of faith is to show them the utter futility of their very foundation. What they know, they know because of God. And the only way they have the ability to grow in knowledge is because of God. Until they come, by God's grace, to see their hopeless condition; all arguments will fall on deaf (indeed dead) ears. So let us share the truth of Christ; and rejoice that God is in the very business of bringing the dead to life!
Comments