Lecture notes on apologetics, 2 of 3

Posted by M on December 21, 2007
Apologetics

The following are notes that a student took during a lecture I gave in May 2001. They are short and contain few examples and illustrations, but there is enough here that may be some help for those interested in the rudiments of presuppositional apologetics. My thanks to Ryan Kidd for taking these notes.

War of the Worldviews – Introduction to Presuppositionalism

Christian apologetics doesn’t come down to a war of arguing for the evidence from supposed “common ground.” That is fundamentally incorrect. The best method is to show the inconsistency of unbelief from the perspective of the Bible. I hold many proponents of other apologetic schools in high respect, but there is something deficient in each of their systems. They all hold that the existence of God can be proved. This is important and correct. We share their belief in using evidences. But we hold that believers and unbelievers do not share common ground in their ability to reason to truth from the facts. There comes a time in apologetic engagement when we must discuss the philosophy of the facts. Evidences are useful only once we have the same philosophy of the facts. The Reformed epistemologists are to be commended for not accepting the foundation of unbelieving thought. Gordon Clark is helpful in expsosing the the problems of unbelieving thought. But only Van Til’s presuppositionalism offers a consistent, biblical, effective Christian apologetic. It takes the biblical worldview for granted, and shows the irrationality of unbelief. (Acts 17:16-34 is a demonstration of the presuppositional system in action)

Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. We Christians are at war; we are at war with the world. God cursed the seed of the serpent and said that the woman’s seed of promise will be at war with those excluded from the covenant blessings of God. We don’t use physical violence; we are doing spiritual warfare. Our weapons are divinely powerful for the demolishing of systems of unbelief. Our equipment given in the Scripture is for warfare. Many churches have a deficient gospel message: you’re fine as you are, add Jesus to your midst.

According to Christianity, the unbeliever’s life is not merely incomplete. It is basically hostile to God. On the surface it appears there is a great deal of shared belief between unbelievers and Christians, so-called neutral ground. But the Bible doesn’t teach this. Ephesians 4:17-19 says unbelievers are separated from the life of God. In our natural state, we humans are very deficient; God must first enlighten us so we can know what God is like. The thoughts of the wicked are idolatrous. They are darkened in their understanding. Truth is light. But unbelievers are darkened in their understandings due to the hardening of their hearts. They are not stupid or deficient in education. But they are hardened in their hearts. The reason is that they are sinners; they have suppressed the truth; they are at war with God. Many apologists believe you can convince the unbeliever by good arguments. But the reason he won’t believe is not lack of education, it is because the unbeliever is avoiding God – he hates God and the claims God makes on his life.

Colossians 1:21: you were once enemies in your mind. Even the unbeliever’s thoughts are hostile to God. 1 Corinthians 2:13,14 “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Unbelievers cannot understand spiritual things. The truth of God is folly to them because of unbelief. Many unbelievers do understand propositionally the truth of God quite well. However, they may not understand in a saving way, because it doesn’t penetrate their hearts.

The unbeliever is not neutral. He is hostile to God. You cannot accept that the unbeliever as being able to reason to the truth. It is not lack of education. Unbelief is a heart problem. Proverbs 1:7 says the “fear of God brings wisdom.” Colossians 2:3,8: Paul is not saying don’t study philosophy. He is saying don’t be fooled into unbelief by it. The best way to avoid that is to diligently study the Word and to understand unbelieving philosophy.

We are not saying unbelievers don’t know anything. They have true knowledge but their knowledge is inconsistent with their claims of unbelief. Romans 1:18-20 describes suppression of truth. Fallen man seeks to be a law unto himself. But because of common grace, he does not rebel to the fullest degree. Because of this he is able to make a positive contribution to society. He lives his life in an inconsistent way; he borrows Christian epistemological capital. The unbeliever is standing on the truths of God’s word in order to reason against the truth of God. You cannot serve two masters. The attempt to be neutral is immoral. Loyalty, to Christ is all pervasive. We must not be neutral when reasoning with an unbeliever. Matt 28:18: all authority is given to Christ. If all authority is given to Christ, then everything including apologetics is under Christ. We must submit our epistemology to Christ. The problem with unbelievers is that they want to be their own authority. They won’t submit to a life of service to God. If you say “use your reason to test God” you are granting the unbeliever’s presupposition which is his basic problem. Unbelievers do not have the right to call God into question. The basic problem with man is that he has tried to be his own standard for good and evil.

The practice of weighing of evidence fairly is not possible in apologetics because the unbeliever is hostile to God and bent upon suppressing the truth. No one can be neutral. Both believer and unbeliever will reason over the facts from the point of view of his basic inclination toward God.

Even an unbeliever who believes in that Christ rose from the dead is not logically compelled to become a Christian. From a naturalistic viewpoint, this event may merely be a weird and so far unexplained fact. And as Van Til repeatedly asserted, facts do not speak for themselves.

One comes to the evidence with a worldview, a network of presuppositions which are understood and related. A presupposition is an elementary assumption in one’s reasoning. It is used to interpret the world around you. The presupposition itself is not tested by experience. It is a belief one holds to come what may. There is no evidence you could give a man which would overturn his presuppositions.

Since there are many worldviews, it is these that must be dealt with in apologietics and not mere arguments about facts. My belief in the Bible makes me interpret the world in the way I do. Worldviews cannot be falsified by appealing to facts, but they can be falsified by another means. More on this in a following lecture..

The unbeliever has a different set of presuppositions, but we Christians are to think God’s thoughts after him and not call his word question. Thus our apologetic method must begin with God’s self- revelation.

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

WP_Big_City