Dr Greg Bahnsen - Seminary Apologetics: Kuyper and Warfield (Part 20)

This message is a continuation of the previous tape. Seek to judge. And so, in the very nature of the case, apologetics can't appeal to the natural principium. To use Kuyper's language, he who considers it possessed of this competency declares thereby eo ipso in the very fact that it is still normal and thus removes all sufficient reason for a special revelation. You must either deny it the right of judgment or if you grant it this right, the object disappears, upon which judgment shall be passed. The psychiatrist who treats the maniac cannot render his method of treatment dependent upon the judgment of his patient. Equally little can you attribute this right of judgment over the special principium to to the natural principe. If the natural man were competent to judge, he wouldn't need special revelation, right? He wouldn't need redemptive revelation. The very fact that he needs redemptive revelation means that we don't grant his competence to judge based on his natural way of thinking. Our defense of the faith accomplishes nothing positive. If throughout it we allow the unbeliever to keep God in the dock, thinking that he has every right and capability to to stand in judgment over the one whom he has sinned against, we are thereby denying the greatness of divine wisdom. In order to let people come finally to the conclusion that God's wisdom is pretty great, we must not be concessive to the unbeliever. Then we must demand surrender. Unconditional surrender. We don't negotiate surrender God. Now I haven't yet talked to you about how all this plays itself out in the verbal exchange and dialogue between us and the unbeliever. But my point is, the theory of presuppositionalism says I'm not coming to him to say, yes, you're all right as far as you go. Let me see if I can bring you. But on the other hand, to my conclusion, I want absolute surrender, unconditional, non negotiated surrender to God. Man doesn't have any measure of autonomy. The space, time, world in which we live is not contingent. Our epistemology of necessity needs to rely upon God's word and not man. Otherwise we build right into our apologetic the right and the ability of the natural man, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, to judge the claims of the authoritative word of God, that is to stamp his approval on God's word by his self established intellectual tools, and then at that point be willing to sit and listen to the word that he has already stamped as validated and true. The minute you grant that to the unbeliever. You may not say it outwardly, but the minute you grant that in your method to the unbeliever, you have given him everything he needs to reject Christianity again. Unbelievers haven't self consciously thought through their theory of answering Christian apologists, but in their heart of hearts they realized that if I'm autonomous enough to be the judge over divine revelation, then in the end I don't need to accept divine revelation. You've already told him he's quite all right just the way he is. You know, it's like the apologist going out like Billy Joel. Don't go changing. Yeah, but I want you to change. I want you to repent. Why do I say don't change at the beginning and think that at the end I'll get him to change his mind? No, I want to say go changing. You gotta change from the outset here. If you tell him he's all right just the way he is, then he won't think he needs to change. When all is said and done, the unbelievers problem is not quantitative. It's not just that he doesn't have enough truth or enough evidence. His problem's qualitative. His heart is black, his eyes are blinded, he doesn't see the light. You don't want to tell the unbeliever that the scripture is really wrong about you when it says you have a darkened mind and a perverse heart. And although it's wrong about you on that, we would like you to accept that it's right that you're going to go to hell for your perversity. So turn. It just won't work. How many times can I say this? How many ways can I say it? Have I made my point? No. Yes. But. Auguste la Serf rightly pointed out that our apologetic arguments, and I quote, have no persuasive value except from the moment when at once vanquished and enlightened by grace, the natural man consents, as is his objective duty, to relinquish the autonomy of his reason and submit to the discriminating principle of religious truth. This principle consists in the affirmation of the absolute independence and exclusive sovereignty of God in the noetic order. Noetic N O E T I C has nothing to do with Noah, a character in the Bible. The noetic order having to do with the mind in the Greek word not. Oh, to think. This principle consists in the affirmation of the absolute independence and exclusive sovereignty of God in the noetic order as well as in all the orders of reality. It is the soli Dio Gloria To God be the glory. The Christian apologetic doesn't seek therefore to prove or verify God's word, having the believer serve as God's defense attorney who attempts to win an acquittal from the tribunal of the autonomous unbeliever. The Bible is not externally verified at all, for it has absolute authority inherent to itself. Its self attesting nature is of utmost apologetical significance. And I have a little bit longer quote here that I like you to pay attention to, even though it's something of a longer quote. It comes from John Murray in an article entitled the Attestation of Scripture in the book the Infallible Word. He puts his finger right on it. He says the ground of faith emphatically is not our ability to demonstrate all the teaching of the Bible to be self consistent and true. This is just saying that rational demonstration is not the ground of faith. The nature of faith is acceptance on the basis of testimony and the ground of faith is therefore testimony or evidence. This means simply that the basis of faith in the Bible is the witness the Bible itself bears to the fact that it is God's word. This might seem to be arguing in a circle. We should be little disturbed by this type of criticism. It contains an inherent fallacy. It is fully admitted that normally it would be absurd and a miscarriage of justice for a judge to accept the testimony of the accused rather than the verdict required by all the relevant evidence. But the two cases are not analogous. There is one sphere where self testimony must be accepted as absolute and final. This is the sphere of our relation to God. God alone is adequate to witness to himself and hence our apologetic would not serve, should not serve to put man in the dock and should not serve to put man in. Read my own sentence here. Our apologetics would not serve to put man in the dock and recognize God as the legitimate judge at the bench if it strove to work into faith from an independently acquired and neutral understanding of fact and logic. Our understanding doesn't proceed and serve to arbitrate with respect to the faith to which God calls us. By contrast, faith precedes and undergirds any and all genuine understanding by the human intellect. The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. Faith is not established by the groundworkings of reason. Rather reason is established on the groundworking of faith. Human understanding can never be made the verification of faith because without faith there is no proper understanding available to man whereby he might. Judge Augustine said it well, I believe in order to understand Christian apologetics must reckon with that truth by beginning with the self attesting word of Scripture as an absolutely necessary presupposition, the assurance of which is produced by the Holy Spirit that opens blinded eyes to see God speaking authoritatively in the Bible, and who grants a heart of flesh enabled to bow before the Holy Sovereign himself. Because God's inscripturated word bears highest epistemic certainty, our defense of the Christian faith begins not with proofs, not with probabilities, but with the presupposition of the Bible's truth. Calvin's conclusion, I think is very appropriate here. From the institute see is let this point therefore stand, that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self authenticated. Hence it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning, and the certainty it deserves with us it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore illumined by his power. We believe, neither by our own nor by anyone else's judgment, that Scripture is from God, but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty, just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself, that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean, but we subject our judgment and wit to it as a thing far beyond any guesswork. Such, then is a conviction that requires no reason, such a knowledge with which the best reason agrees, in which the mind truly reposes more securely and constantly than in any reason. Such finally, a feeling that can be born only of heavenly revelation. The Christian religion is under constant attack by the unregenerate. It's pitted against rival religions, logicistic onslaught, scientific incursions and the like. And to complicate the situation we find ourselves in, in the defensive stances which have been advocated throughout the years, are multitudes multiform? A crucial standard then, in pursuing the apologetical task is what standard should we utilize for guidance and judgment and argumentation? Is the acceptance of that standard based on an arbitrary volition, or is there a reason case to be made for it? How can one be sure that this standard is right? What degree of certainty are we entitled to? The Westminster Confession of Faith definitively answers these questions about our criterion of apologetics in religious disputes. And if we heed its word, God will no longer be sinfully assigned to the dock to plead for acceptance before the judgment of self deified, autonomous men, the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined and all doctrines of men and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. The authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed and obeyed dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, who is truth itself, the author thereof. And therefore it is to be received because it is the word of God. Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. And so this is what I wanted to share with you to open the door to this presuppositional theory of apologetics that we're going to be laying out today. It begins with recognizing the greatness of divine wisdom and not compromising that, not at least wishing, not ever to compromise that. When we go about defending the faith, it takes its standard of knowledge, its epistemology, from God's wisdom. How do we know? Because God has told us. Where has God told us? In His Word? How do you know? He's told us in His Word? He says that he's told us in His Word. Well, that's circular reasoning where only God is adequate to witness the instruction. And the God who reveals Himself in this Bible makes an absolute demand upon all mankind. Since they do hear his voice here, do recognize their Creator, they do see how this book does accord with everything they know from their experience of the natural world and internally. He expects men upon his say so, to submit to him as the final Lord. Not to put him to the test, but to realize that they become sick, that they will not accept the word of the cross. What procedure do we use? The indirect or twofold procedure. First, going to the foundational commitments that separate the believer from the unbeliever, recognizing that they have basic systems of thought that are in conflict with each other, and showing how we can answer the unbelievers problems from within our circle of commitment. And then secondly, doing an internal critique of the unbeliever system, reducing it to unintelligibility, and in so doing demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary of what we believe. A twofold apologetical procedure based on the greatness of divine wisdom. Here. We're going to change gears here. Now, in the development of presuppositional theory of apologetics, I'm going to look at a Number of things having to do with the history of apologetics, meta apologetics that are relevant to our day and age vis a vis presuppositionalism. I'm going to look at the contrast between Kiefer and Warfield and where Van Till's presuppositionalism fits in. I'm going to look at natural theology and evidentialism as different approaches to apologetics and ask where does presuppositionalism fit in? And then I'm going to work through a presuppositional defense of the faith to show you how the theory pans out. So we're going to turn attention now to presuppositionalism as a theory with a view to how Van Til's presuppositional apologetic as it's been developed in the 20th century compares to different points of view. In the first, comparisons are going to have to do with Kiefer and Warfield. Why Kiefer and Warfield? Well, you can hardly find two bigger names in the 20th century in terms of Reformed dogmatics and theology. Abraham Kuyper, of course, of the Netherlands, and BB Warfield of the old, what we call old Princeton Seminary. It has often been said by critics of presuppositionalism, critics of Van Till's approach, that Van Till made the mistake of following Kuyper because he was a Dutchman after all, following Kuyper rather than Warfield. Van Till was a Dutchman and had great regard and respect for Abraham Kiefer. But Van Till got his own theological training at Princeton Seminary. And so you can see how it would be legitimate for people to say, well, now, which would he go with, Kiefer on the one hand or Warfield on the other? And the suggestion's been made that Van Till actually went with Kiefer. I'm going to offer a different perspective. I'm not going to suggest that he went with Warfield over against Kuyper any more than that he went with Kuyper against Warfield, but that Van Till endorsed both and corrected both. And in the process of figuring out how that can be, you'll learn something more precise about. You'll get a clearer grasp, I think, of what Van Till has taught in terms of presuppositional apologetics. Why do some people oppose apologetics today? Just think generally now. Well, some Christians are anti intellectual, so they don't believe in argumentation. They'll say, so they don't really teach apologetics or have an interest in it. Some Christians have a false kind of Piety, you know, that says God needs no defense, so it's really dishonoring to him to defend his word. But equally, the sophisticated opinion of someone like Abraham Kiefer can be used to argue that apologetics is intellectually futile. Pieper understood that all men conduct their thinking and reasoning in terms of an ultimate controlling principle. He recognized that all men conduct their thinking in terms of a basic presupposition or perspective, a mental attitude, a principium. And for the unbeliever, this is a natural principle in terms of which man's thinking is taken to be intelligible without any recourse to God. But for the believer, the principle is a supernatural one, based on God's involvement in man's history and experience, notably in regeneration, which provides the framework necessary for making sense of anything. Now, these two ultimate commitments, the natural principle and the supernatural principle, or to speak in terms that have been more familiar to us, naturalism and Christian supernaturalism, these two ultimate commitments are logically incompatible and always seek to cancel each other out. And that's why Kiefer said they must in principle create two kinds of science, quote, unquote, two kinds of science. Where science, of course, is a theoretical attempt to develop truth about some area of life or all the areas of life. The natural principle and the supernatural principle create two different kinds of science, where each perspective in principle contradicts whatever the other perspective says and in fact will deny to it the noble name science. Kuyper was quite insightful here. He said, not only do they develop their thinking in different directions, but when they look at one another, they say, well, that's not even science. You're not doing science. The Christian looks at the end wave and says, that's not scientific. The unbeliever takes his philosophy and looks at the Christian what you're doing is not scientific. Macyper says there are two kinds of science that will be developed out of the two warring principles, and they won't even acknowledge each other as being scientific. They won't give each other the name science. And thus the unbeliever is bent on distorting, reinterpreting, or rejecting any evidence or argumentation which is set forth in support of and which is controlled by the believer's ultimate commitment in order to be consistent. The unbeliever cannot even allow for the possibility that the Christian proclamation is true. Kuyper saw all of this and Van Til said, you are correct. Two ultimate principles, two presuppositions, two different worldviews, two sciences, and you won't even honor one another by saying yes, that's scientific or that amounts to knowledge. Kuyper saw all this, but from it he drew a fallacious conclusion. He drew a conclusion which is really much more in line with anti intellectualism and false piety. He drew the conclusion that Christian apologetics was useless. And there's no need for pressing. There's no pressing need to reason with the darkened understanding of the unbeliever. And I'm going to quote Kuyper here from the Principles of Sacred Theology. He said it will be impossible to settle the difference of insight. No polemics between these two kinds of science can ever serve any purpose. This is the reason why apologetics has always failed to reach results. However, Van Till says that that conclusion does not follow from the biblical insight on which it was originally based. Conclusion doesn't follow because there are other equally biblical insights that need to be taken into account. For instance, the unbeliever's intention may be to follow his naturalistic principle consistently and he may claim to be doing so. But. But to do so in practice is not actually possible. So in theory. In theory, the natural principle and the supernatural principle wouldn't even acknowledge each other as science. They couldn't talk to each other. There could never be any fruitfulness in that kind of dialogue. In theory. But the point is, the unbeliever can't follow the natural principle consistently. He cannot escape the persuasive power of God's revelation around him and within him. Indeed, by the common grace of the Holy Spirit, he's restrained from successfully obliterating the testimony of God around him and within him, he conducts his life and his reasoning in terms of God's revelation. Since there's no other way for man to learn and make sense of the truth about himself or the world, but all the while verbally denying it and convincing himself that it's not so. In light of these things, not only is the apologist able to mount a compelling argument against the cogency of the unbelievers espoused philosophy and the adequacy of his interpretation of the facts. But the unbeliever can also be expected to understand and feel the force of the apologist reasoning. Apologetical argument, intellectual reasoning which goes beyond mere testimony must not therefore be disparaged and ignored. Van Til said. It must not be reduced to an effort that is futile because of the subjectivity and the ultimate perspective and presupposition of the unbeliever. Van Till said that Christianity must be presented to men as the objective Truth and provably so. Provably so. It's not only a moral lapse, it's an unjustified intellectual lapse to reject the message of God's revealed word. And so was Van Till on the side of Kuyper? Well, a simple yes or no answer is going to be misleading, isn't it? Van Till agreed with Kuyper. There are two different warring worldviews, two different ultimate principles. Two ultimate principles or presuppositions that cannot get along with each other and will not honor each other even doing the same thing. But Van Till completely disagreed with Kiefer. When Kiefer was led by that, he thought to the conclusion apologetics is useless. Kuyper had a correct insight and an incorrect inference from it. That the correct insight is you have warring worldviews or principles and therefore two different sciences and theory. But you didn't have. He didn't have the right inference from that when he inferred that apologetics is useless. Van Till says we can communicate with unbelievers because they're unable to carry out their principium, their principle, successfully. Well, then, since Van Til thinks there is an objective argument that proves Christianity to be true, then apparently he's on the side of Dr. Warfield. Because, you see, Warfield disagreed with Kuyper on this point. So it would appear that maybe now Vantil is, after all an old Princeton apologist like Warfield. But Van Til, as those of you who have read the introduction that he wrote for Warfield's work on the inspiration of Scripture, Van Till had great difficulty with what Warfield was attempting to do as well. Warfield, along with the entire old Princeton tradition behind him, thought that apologetics lays the foundation upon which systematic theology works. The inspiration of the Scriptures, according to him, was not the foundational doctrine upon which the Christian scholar proceeds, but in fact the last and crowning conviction to which the Christian scholar comes based upon the authentication of the Scripture's general trustworthiness by man's right reason. Listen to this quote. This is from his introduction to Francis Beatty's Apologetics. Warfield says surely he must first have Scriptures authenticated to him as such before he can take his standpoint in them. He must first have Scriptures authenticated to him as such before he can take his standpoint within them. Faith has grounds in right reason. We see two things about the perspective of Warfield here and what he would encourage the apologist to do. One, he would encourage the apologist to take his stand outside of a commitment to Scripture Scripture. And two, take his stand in agreement with the right reason of the unbeliever. That is, he would encourage the apologist to be autonomous to authenticate the Scriptures. And then having done that, then take his stand within the Scriptures and develop his theology. Please turn the cassette over at this time. And it's this kind of apologetic where Christ is not the final authority which would prepare for and be the authoritative foundation of systematic theology, where Christ now takes over as the final authority. Okay, kind of like the we're going to go with the right reason of the unbeliever. We're going to, we're going to drive to St. Louis there, and then we're going to change drivers and then Jesus is going to take over. And once we get across the Mississippi river, we'll start doing systematic theology between here and the Mississippi, we're doing apologetics. I'm in the driver's seat using right reason with the unbeliever. And then once right reason has authenticated the Scriptures, then we invite Jesus to take over and we'll do our systematic theology. We take a back seat to him. Dan Till finds two fatal flaws in this outlook. The first is the most obvious, that I've already indicated by my illustration, and that it's schizophrenic and makes Christ your final authority only after he's been authorized by your right reasoning so that you have the final authority. When all is said and done in principle. Each and every teaching or action of Christ could then be expected on its own to pass the scrutiny of man's reasoning, lest that particular item that we're considering in the Bible provide a reason for refusing to have general trust in Christ. You can't just say, okay, I've come to this generalized trust in Christ. Now whatever the Bible teaches, I'll believe. Because after all, there may be something in the Bible which is taught by Christ that right reason can't accept. In which case you shouldn't accept Jesus as your final authority. You just can't do it that way. It's schizophrenic. Secondly, there's the mistake of taking the autonomous non Christian as being capable of right reason. Boy, isn't that laughable? I mean, if it weren't so tragic and that many Christians and pastors and those that they have taught have been led down, you know, a false road. I mean, that's laughable for a Calvinist like Warfield to say. We need to appeal to the right reason of the unbeliever. The what? The right reason of this totally Depraved man who has a darkened mind and a hardened heart makes no sense for for Christians to appeal to the unbeliever as though he has right reason. This is the mistake of taking the autonomous non Christian as somehow being capable of right reason. When the clear testimony of the Bible is that he abuses his mind and he has an ax to grind against God. Romans 1:21. The unbeliever becomes vain in his reasoning. First Corinthians 2:14. He cannot receive the things of God's spirit as anything but foolish. Proverbs 1:7. He hates knowledge. You see, if Warfield had been consistent with this understanding, and thankfully I note that he wasn't, but if Warfield had been consistent with this understanding, he would have ended up with both bad theology where man's the final authority, and bad apologetics where the unbelievers fundamental approach is unobjectionable. So what's wrong with Warfield's approach? The good aspect of Warfield's approach over against Kuyper is that he believed there was an objective, intelligible, clear revelation of God in the natural realm that should be stressed. And that therefore if you use right reason, there's good evidence for the truth of the Bible. The inference that he drew that was incorrect is that the natural man is able to use that right reason and come up with a theology based on what he can learn from history and nature that will honor God. That is he drew the wrong inference that the natural man is capable of a correct interpretation using right reason. And so Warfield should have listened to Kiefer. Kiefer says no, no, there's two sciences, two principium, two ultimate outlooks and perspectives, and they won't honor each other. Well, so which is it? Should we follow Warfield or should we follow Kuyper in this matter? If you want to understand Van Til's presuppositionalism, I think it may be maybe the coin will drop for you if you recognize that for Van Till, both Kuyper and Warfield are right. Both Kuyper and Warfield are wrong. He doesn't stand with either one of them then, does he? With Warfield he wants to recognize there is an absolutely solid objective proof of Christianity and it's only right reason that is going to understand it. With Kuyper he understands the unbeliever is not capable of right reason because the unbeliever is trying to develop a natural principium by which he can reject everything the Christian's saying. And so Warfield recognizes that there are worldviews in conflict. I'm using my terminology now, Warfield. I said Warfield, and I pointed at Kuyper. Kiefer recognizes that there are worldviews in conflict. Warfield recognized that you can argue and objectively demonstrate that your worldview is correct. The problem is Warfield didn't see that the unbeliever doesn't have the right reason to submit to that. But the argument is nevertheless there. We need to challenge the rightness of. Of the reasoning of the unbeliever. We need to challenge the natural principium. And that's Van Til's, I think, crowning glory. But he realized what we need to do is to take the battle to the world and say, where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where's the debater of this age? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Van Til's basic apologetical point can be expressed in three words. Okay, this is still under Kuyper and Warfield. Three words. Rebecca. What are those three words? You've made my day. Thank you. Anti theism presupposes theism. Bantil says, I know that the unbeliever is trying to develop a contrary worldview. He's trying to develop a contrary worldview, and in that worldview he'll oppose everything the supernatural principle represents and teaches. But Warfield is right that we have an argument that is objectively sound for right reason. An argument that can explode the natural principle. And it explodes the natural principle by pointing out that the development of the unbelieving worldview, in order to proceed, must assume the believing worldview. Maybe you've heard it so often that you're accustomed to it, but I just marvel at it. I've spent so many years studying philosophy and so forth, I'm telling you, they're just. God graced this man to see something which is really the application of these biblical principles we've studied. But what he said is the unbeliever, in order to operate at all, has got to assume the truth of what he's trying to destroy. Anti theism presupposes theism. And so Kiefer was right. There are two irreconcilable worldviews, the regenerate worldview and the unregenerate worldview. But Warfield was right that the case for Christianity is rationally objective and clear. And here's the rational, objective and clear argument. The development of your irreconcilable worldview presupposes the truth of what you're trying to destroy your antitheism presupposes theism. And so Van Til did believe in reasoned argumentation. In apologetics. He thought it was appropriate. He said that it was necessary. He believed with Kiefer that Christianity or the biblical worldview needed to be defended as a unit. However, not piecemeal. We don't first show that the walls of Jericho really did fall outward, you know, and that Isaiah the prophet did prophesy the virgin birth years before Jesus came, and that the apostle Paul, who opposed Jesus must have really met the resurrected Jesus or you can't account for his change of mind. And then little by little, piece by piece, get to the place where we say and likely the whole Bible is true. So we got to think the whole Bible as a unit. It's the whole system of teaching that we try to vindicate. And in apologetics we develop a method for answering every variety of challenge that comes up. We don't think apologetical reasoning with unbelievers is useless, as Kiefer concluded. Apologists recognize, says Van Till, that the Christian's commitment involves a distinctive method of knowing that what we believe about reality, that God is the Creator, that man is made in his image, that all of history is under his providential control, that what we believe about metaphysics and reality is interdependent with the way in which we know it. We know it because God the Creator in his providence has revealed Himself to us and controls every fact. And so our outlook on reality and our outlook on how we know about reality are adjusted to each other. They're a network of presuppositions. And to those presuppositions we give a pre privileged status within our thinking. They're the very center of our spider web, if you will. And so do we hold to Christianity on the basis of reason or do we hold it on the basis of faith? For Van Till, faith and reason are expressions of submission to God who is the Lord of the covenant. So in my reasoning I have to be faithful and in my faith I have to be reasonable. Let me say that again. In my reasoning I must be faithful and my faith must be reasonable. Because both faith and reason are expressions of submission to the Lord of the covenant. My ultimate presupposition about God speaks. Speaking in the Scriptures is authorized by God speaking in the Scriptures and claiming that it's God who's doing the speaking. Yes, that looks like circular reasoning, but only the Christian's self authorizing circle is true and objective. According to Van Till, this is critical. Van Till believes That the Christian self authorizing circle is objectively true, not just subjectively true. It's not just the persuasive work of the Spirit that makes me take this blind leap to be a Christian, but rather objective truth is expressed by the Christian worldview. Objective. So it's public. It's common to all men. Anybody who uses right reason would see it. But of course we recognize no one uses right reason. They have their own allegedly self authorizing circle by which they oppose Christianity. Allegedly self authorizing circle by which they oppose Christianity. I say allegedly self authorizing because when the unbeliever takes his final authority and says it authorizes itself rather than being self authorizing, it proves to be self refuting. Because there's only one being who really is self authorizing, that's God. And every other idolatrous attempt to substitute for God fails. If God as God must be self authorizing, then any other attempt to be self authorizing is an idol that will fail. Let me give you an example. I say that the final authority for what I believe is whatever God says in the scriptures. And God has the right to say what he does because of who he is. He's personal. He knows all things. He created all things. He's the sovereign Lord. He controls everything. Everything will answer to Him. He's the final judge. He's the final authority. So I say I have a self authorizing authority. And you can see within my system that it does authorize itself. God does have the authority to authorize God's authority. That circle at least makes sense now. I talked to somebody who says no, no, for me the final authority is observation. I believe only what I can see. That's your final authority? That's right. I can't go any further. It has to be the authority which is the self authorizing authority. When you think about it, everything we know is based on observation is not self authority, self authorizing itself refuting. Because the sentence, the statement everything we know is based on observation is not something that's been verified by observation. So here you have an idol which is a failure at taking the place of the living and true God. Mantill says the Christian worldview is objectively true. And objectively, I mean it's objectively true. And that the unbelievers attempt to use the self authorizing authority to oppose it is in fact self refuting. Van Til taught us that the need for revelation was there for man before the fall as well as after the fall. And therefore all thinking and thinking about all things equally requires the Self disclosure of God, the revelation of God. See, if you were to think well, Adam and Eve could have gotten by just fine before the fall without revelation, then you might think, well, but things that don't have to do with salvation after man's fall, things having to do with the natural world don't need revelation. And we have huge portions of the Christian world, professibly Christian world and in fact by that very perspective that there is a natural realm understood in a natural way and a supernatural realm that's understood in a way that's beyond nature and reason, faith. So we have nature, grace. And Van Til says, you can't accept that you need God's grace, you need God's revelation to understand anything, including the realm of nature. There is no epistemology therefore that can be non revelational. There is no epistemology, be it temporary or partial in application, that can be autonomous. Van Till goes on to say, the unbeliever therefore knows God in knowing anything. The unbeliever knows God. Since the unbeliever is in fact the image of God. The unbeliever can't know himself without knowing God. He cannot know the world that God has made without knowing knowing the maker of that world. The unbeliever knows God, but he knows God and suppresses the truth and unrighteousness. He's in rebellion. And therefore his professed ignorance of God is culpable. Unbelievers are not innocent and unbelievers are not neutral in their methods of reason. So the way in which we incorporate the insights of Kiefer and Warfield is that we agree with Warfield that right reason does see that there's objective truth in Christianity. There's an objective proof of it. And right reason must recognize what Kiefer said, that there are two warring worldviews and that the unbelievers worldview is reduced to absurdity, to foolishness. And thus Van Til proposed the transcendental argument for God's existence. The transcendental argument for God's existence states only the Christian worldview provides the preconditions for the intelligible use of reasoning. Let me say it again. Only the Christian worldview provides the preconditions for the intelligible use of reasoning. That's the final argument, the absolutely certain argument for the truth of Christianity. That only the Christian worldview provides the preconditions for the intelligible use of reasoning. Whether the reasoning is scientific reasoning, logical reasoning, ethical reasoning, whether we're talking about language, predication, anything at all. Only The Christian worldview provides the preconditions for the intelligible use of reasoning. Kiefer says there are two different worldviews being developed out there. Evangelist says, yes, there are. But only the Christian one can provide the preconditions for the intelligible use of the other one. Antitheism presupposes theism. The Christian worldview is thus proved. Warfield told us it could be proved by right reason, objective proof. But when we take into account Kuyper's insight about worldviews, the Warfieldian approach to objective apologetical reasoning leads us to prove the Christian worldview from the impossibility of the contrary. From the impossibility of the contrary. Why is the non Christian worldview the contrary worldview impossible? Because anti theism already presupposes theism? In order for the non Christian to even start reasoning, to make sense of his opposition to Christ Christianity, to make it intelligible, we have to be assuming that the Christian worldview is true. There are two worldviews working against each other. And the best the objective proof that our worldview is true is that the other worldview is already assuming what we say in order to oppose what we say. It's all coming together in your minds, Hopefully. The biblical background that I gave you two days ago, the apologetic. Excuse me, the philosophical background I gave you yesterday, that would lead naturally to this theory of apologetics, wouldn't it? I think Van Till should be thanked by all of us. We have to thank God for his testimony that he has shown us how we can incorporate the brilliant insights of both a Warfield and a Kuyper. When we come back after lunch, I'm going to look at two other traditions in apologetics. The tradition of natural theology, proofs for God's existence and ask how does that relate to what Van Til said? And then the question about evidences. Does Van Til believe in evidences or should we follow an evidential apologetic? Let's take a break. This recording is distributed by Covenant Media Foundation, a non profit educational organization. Unauthorized reproduction of this tape is strictly prohibited. A free catalog of the Foundation's tapes and articles is available by calling 1-800-553-3938.