Dr Greg Bahnsen - Seminary Apologetics: Natural Theology and The Proofs (Part 21)

This message was delivered by Dr. Greg L. Bonson, Scholar in Residence at the Southern California center for Christian Studies in Irvine, California. All right. We continue this afternoon with the development of the presuppositional theory of apologetics. I would like to repeat what I was saying at the end of our last session before lunch as a good way to start up again. Van Til has taught us that antitheism presupposes theism. And so although there are two worldviews that are warring with each other, when the Christian and the non Christian are arguing with each other and each of them develops its own circle itself, authorizing circle of thinking, nevertheless, the Christian worldview, its self authorizing circle, is objectively true and provable. Is objectively true and provable. The transcendental argument that we use for that self authorizing circle is that only the Christian worldview provides the preconditions for the intelligible use of of reasoning. Only the Christian worldview provides the preconditions for the intelligible use of reasoning. So when an unbeliever is reasoning to develop his allegedly self authorizing circle, he is already working within our self authorizing circle in order to make sense out of what he's trying to do in his own circle of thought. So that the unbeliever has already committed himself implicitly, without admitting it. Obviously, the unbeliever has already committed himself to the truth of our worldview in order to develop and to make sense out of developing by his reasoning, an argument against our worldview. And that's why our worldview actually is self verifying, because you can't live without it. Any worldview that tries to replace the self authorizing God of Scripture is in fact creating an idol that can't live up to the job of being self authorizing. All non Christian worldviews prove to be self refuting rather than self authorizing. So in the place where they should be self authorizing, they're not able to authorize themselves. Whereas in the place where we assert self authorization, it is authorized because God does speak for himself. But the demand for observation doesn't in fact have the verification of observation. That idol falls then rather than authorizing itself. Observation and observational epistemology, an epistemology committed to logic, so forth. These things cannot function credibly or intelligibly, as Van Til would put it apart from the worldview that people who use logic in evidence are trying to refute. And so the Christian worldview is proved from the impossibility of the contrary. Anybody who tries to argue against the Christian worldview must first secretly assume the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. And so there's really no escape from it. It is a transcendental necessity. One must see the world as God has revealed himself through nature, and Scripture must see the world in that light in order to make sense of the arguments that they're trying to develop against that worldview. Okay, so this is the vanthilian point of view. Let's move on in our outline to consider two other major aspects of contemporary and historical theory. Apologetics. The first that I wish to look at is the question of natural theology and theistic proofs. Natural theology is the tradition of Thomas Aquinas, the Roman Catholic Church, and any number of Protestant apologists who believe that a proof or a series of proofs for God's existence is possible that is acceptable to the autonomous standards of the natural man, and yet leads to the conclusion that a God exists. Now, Van Till is known fairly widely for opposing the theistic proofs of natural theology, for opposing the theistic proofs of natural theology and a mistake that is made. You'll see this mistake made, for instance, in my debate with RC Sproul, which we have on tape. It's not a great quality tape, but the content, if you're willing to work at it, is worth getting. I think RC Sproul just has taken it for granted that we're all committed to natural theology because Romans 1 says God has revealed himself in the natural order. And I drew a distinction there. I mean, I didn't make it up, but I repeated a distinction there which has not been taken into account at all. And that's the distinction between natural revelation and natural theology. And though in my notes that I'm going to go over here, this will come up, I want to give you an informal explanation of that because it's so crucial before we even begin natural revelation. The concept of natural revelation is that God has disclosed Himself clearly in the natural order, so that when we look at the realm of creation, when we look at nature, God has shown Himself. And I don't mean by that that God has given us some information from which we may, by a series of steps of reasoning, finally get to Him. But rather God is directly and immediately. I hate to say immediately because it's through the mediation of the nature. But the point is, when we look at the world, we immediately recognize God. We recognize our maker, we recognize his character, we recognize our guilt before Him. Let's say that during lunch I happen to go into the hardware store because I was looking for some things that I needed. And I'm down one of the aisles and I don't realize that, you know, Steve Schlissel is in the store. And Steve turns up at the end of the aisle that I'm on. I look up from, you know, the nuts and bolts that I'm concerned with. And I look over there and I say, steve, how you doing? Just think about this homespun illustration for a minute. You think that I looked up from the nuts and bolts and then I went, ah, a person with a beard. Ah, yes, there is a person with this facial complexion. Ah, someone who stands about that height and wearing the kind of coat that I last saw Steve wearing. And then I say, very probably this person at the end of the aisle is Steve Schlissel. Did I do that? Not at all. I looked up and I immediately recognized my friend Steve. There's a difference between reasoning from bits and pieces of evidence to a probable conclusion that ties all that evidence together. A difference between that and immediately recognizing someone or something. What I'm saying is that natural revelation is closer to looking up and seeing your friend and saying, that's my friend. I know him. When we look at the world, we go, oh, yeah, this is God's world. I know him. Natural theology, by contrast, is the attempt to draw theological conclusions, conclusions about God and his existence from evidence. Bits and pieces of evidence, if you will, that I've gained from the natural world. The natural theologian says, you can look at the realm. Well, you can look at human experience, real realm of human experience. You can look at the world and take what you know about the world and from that information, by a series of steps, come to a conclusion very probably about God. It's not as though you look at the world and say, oh, yes, God made it. It's rather you look at the world and say, well, now, isn't that interesting? Everything in the world's in motion, and everything that's in motion is moved by something else. So very likely the whole shooting match was put into order by somebody, and that must be God. That's natural theology. Inferential discursive reasoning to the conclusion that there must be some kind of God. From what I've seen in the world, natural revelation is the concept. Not that a God in some probabilistic way at the end, end of reasoning is known, is that God is immediately known for who he is and with full certainty at the beginning. The very possibility of having an intelligible experience of the world, the very possibility demands that I know the God that is revealed in this world. Okay, just so you have some notion of the difference between natural theology, the development of theistic proofs, from what we all as natural men could agree to, to a conclusion about God, natural theology is different from natural revelation. When R.C. sproul went to Romans 1 to show that, of course we're committed to natural theology, what I said is Romans one doesn't say anything about proofs for God. It doesn't say anything about a discursive step by step process of reasoning. Does says that God has made himself known, God has manifested himself. And so Romans 1 is about natural revelation, not about natural theology. And as often as I explained this contrast, this conceptual contrast, in our apologetical circles, Christians continue to write and to lecture that I hear, who merge those two and just easily go from one to the other, not recognizing that they're philosophically distinct concepts. Now, you should understand that Van Til's criticism of the theistic proofs within the tradition of natural theology, Thomas Aquinas and so forth. Thomas Aquinas, I should explain a bit, right? Natural theology, the proofs of God's existence that Thomas Aquinas and other apologists have set forth are proofs like we see motion in the world, so there must be a mover for the world as a whole. Everything, every event in this world has a cause. So all the events in the world must be caused. And that first mover, that first cause, is God. So that's a thumbnail sketch of the cosmological argument. Or we see that this world shows order and harmony, and therefore there must be a designer for this world. From the order of the world, there is a first orderer or a designer of the world, and that is God. I want you to observe that Van Till's criticism of the theistic principle proofs has always and only been directed against the theistic proofs as they are traditionally formulated. Sometimes I have students that are distressed after I've criticized the cosmological argument. And they say, well, don't you believe that God's the creator of heaven and earth? Yes. And don't you think that unbelievers are supposed to know that from looking at the world? And I say, yes, there's something too. There's a hook, if you will. There is some appealing aspect to the cosmological argument. We do know that the concept of causality is impossible without God. We do know that we're made by God. So when people try to prove that God's the first cause of the world, you Know we have some sympathy for that. But what Van Till is criticizing is the way these proofs have been traditionally formulated and understood and applied. What's wrong with these proofs? Five things. Okay, I'm not going to write them on the board. Try to save some time, but you can keep up with me. One, these proofs as traditionally formulated have erroneously suggested one, that evidence for God's existence seems is ambiguous. Evidence for God's existence is ambiguous. So there's some excuse for denying it or holding that it's only probably true. Some excuse. Not total excuse, but there is some excuse. 2. The traditional proofs have erroneously assumed that there are matters which are epistemically more certain than God himself. There must be something that's epistemologically more certain because it's from those things that you move on to prove with less certainty that God exists. And so the proofs automatically assume there's something you can know with more certainty than God's existence. Remember Descartes? One thing I know for sure is I exist. And now I'm going to move on to proof that God must exist too. Well, that means that I'm more epistemologically certain than God. People using the proofs know better than to say I'm more metaphysically certain than God. They say I don't believe that God is the most certain thing in terms of what's real, but in terms of what we can know. I'm more sure about me and about my experience than I am about God. So that's the second false assumption of the theistic proofs. Thirdly, it's erroneously assumed that the unbelievers espoused presuppositions about reality and knowledge are in themselves sufficient to account for the intelligibility of experience and reasoning. It's assumed that the autonomous man really can make sense out of his reasoning and his experience. And since he is epistemologically self sufficient, he has every philosophical right to question God on his own terms. You don't usually go to a bankrupt person and expect that on his terms he can negotiate how to pay you. If he's bankrupt, he doesn't have any terms. You got to lay down the terms to a bankrupt person. It's not as though we're entering into a contract here. We say now what would you like your terms to be? He's bankrupt. Don't you understand? Well, when you go to the unbeliever and you and you say go ahead on your own terms, develop an argument for God's Existence, you're saying you're not bankrupt? Go ahead. You have every right to try to do this sort of thing. Fourthly, the theistic proofs assume that unregenerate men can be intellectually neutral and open mindedly fair about the subject of God's existence, rather than unrighteous and self deceptive, suppressing the truth at all times. The theistic proofs as they have been developed assume that unregenerate men can be intellectually neutral and open mindedly fair. Remember B.B. warfield's mistake? Let us appeal to right reason as though there was any right reason out there in the unbeliever to which you could appeal. And fifthly, the traditional theistic proofs have assumed that the God which can be rationally proven may or may not be the God of the Christian Scriptures. May or may not, because we're dealing only with isolated truth claims one by one, not an entire worldview. So once you get to a first mover, it's perfectly legitimate for the unbeliever to say, now is that first mover the Christian God. So we're not proving a worldview, we're not proving a concept of God which embraces everything implicitly that's true of God. We're only proving a little bit here and there. And so the God which is rationally proven might not in the end prove to be the God of the Christian Scriptures. Van Till has found these five points to be compelling as to why we don't want to argue for God's existence in the traditional way. There are also internal philosophical flaws with the traditional formulations of the theistic proofs. There are internal philosophical problems with these proofs, and that's interesting in itself to study all that. Let me give you a couple of examples. But my point after the examples is, though there are internal philosophical flaws, these five points I just brought up should be sufficient for any of us to say that's not the way we want to approach apologetics. What are some of the internal philosophical flaws? Well, if God is the first cause, if the argument is we see causes or we see events which are caused in this world, and therefore there must be a cause for the whole shooting match, there's the logical mistake of moving from each event has a cause to all events together have one cause. That's just what's known as a quantification mistake in logic. You haven't proven that there's one cause for the entire world. When you look at all the causal relations, you've just proven that there are many first causes. Perhaps. Moreover, the argument is illogical and fallacious because. Because it moves from the character of the part to the character of the whole, which is illegitimate in logic. What if you have a football team and let's just say the center in your football team is given the league's most valuable player award, so you have the best. Or maybe he's given the award for being the all league first string center. You're going to choose a team from the various teams in the league. This man is first string when it comes to center. Now, can you argue, since our team has as a part the center that's the most valuable center in the league, therefore we're the most valuable team in the league. No. The characteristics or qualities of the parts are not necessarily the characteristic or quality of the whole. We know that in logic. And yet this argument says, since the parts that we look at in this world show that there's some causal background, something caused them, therefore the whole team must have some causal background too. The characteristic of the parts isn't necessarily the characteristic of the whole. Moreover, the parts that we have studied. This is the third problem. The parts that we have studied are all natural. What I know is that every event in this world has something that's preceded it as its cause. And it's a natural cause. Well, from that, that one by one by one by one by one by one by one, each one of the events of the world has a natural cause. I could never, no matter how many examples I have, I could never get to a supernatural cause. All I could get is to another natural cause. And this is what Immanuel Kant pointed out, that these proofs try to move from nature to supernature. And so they're fallacious in and of themselves. If everything must have a cause, if that's your premise, everything has a cause, therefore the world must have a cause. You need to go on and say, and then what caused God? If your premise is everything has a cause, then God must have a cause too. But if your premise is everything in the created world must have a cause, that premise would be true. But if that's your premise, what have you already assumed in your premise? That this world's created, and so then only the Creator is exempted from the need for having a cause. So it turns out the attempt to prove God's existence from what looks like a pretty good elementary intuitive insight that there must be a cause for everything. It's pretty hard philosophically to formulate the argument in a way that is, you know, cogent philosophically. But Van Till's point is that apart from the philosophical problems with these proofs, the five assumptions that I've listed for you are theologically as well as philosophically unacceptable. What did Paul say in Romans 1, 18, 20, 22? Let's see if we can go through and knock down the five. In Romans 1, Paul says that the very living and true God in all of his eternal power and divine character already number five now is out. It's not just any God, it's the living and true God in all of his character is so clearly and inescapably revealed in man's experience. So now the second item that I've listed for you has been knocked out is so clearly and inescapably revealed in man's experience that all men know God. And there is absolutely no excuse for denying it. Contrary to the first characteristic of the theistic proofs that I gave you, all men know God. And there's absolutely no excuse for denying that. Nevertheless, Paul in the same passage tells us all men strive to suppress the truth and unrighteousness. Contrary to the fourth characteristic of the theistic proofs, all men strive to suppress the truth and unrighteousness and they end up becoming vain and foolish in their reasoning. Contrary to the third mistake of the theistic proofs, that men are intellectually self sufficient. There's not a whole lot to commend the theistic proofs as they've been traditionally formulated. They are philosophically bogus and theologically refuted by the Bible itself and what they take for granted. For instance, the theistic proofs presuppose that all events are random, that there's freedom in this world, that anything can happen. There's a world of chance. And then they turn around and insist on rigid explanation by means of scientific laws. There's got to be order and necessity. Well, which is it? Anything can happen. It's a chance world. Or we have to explain everything in terms of rigid law. Like explanations, they'll presuppose that there's nothing but matter in motion, materialism, and then turn around and call for adherence to the non materialistic laws of logic. Which is it? The unbeliever is not intellectually self sufficient. The unbelievers got order, disorder, materialism, immaterialism, and just cannot bring this oil and water together in any kind of homogenous mix. Van Till realizes that there is no natural theology. If we mean that According to Romans 1, the created realm simply provides uninterpreted raw data which makes possible, provided men rationally reflect upon it correctly, a natural knowledge of God as the eventual conclusion of their reasoning. I've already explained this to you, but I'm going to read that sentence again, emphasizing these points. There is no natural theology if we mean that the created realm provides uninterpreted raw data, which makes possible, provided men rationally reflect on it correctly, a natural knowledge of God at the conclusion of their reasoning. From the standpoint of epistemology. And you know this, given our lectures yesterday. From the standpoint of epistemology, there is no uninterpreted sense data. There is no raw data because everything we believe and every experience we have is clustered, remember? So there is no uninterpreted raw data out there. And from the metaphysical side, there's no logic, no reasoning that's free of a commitment to some view of reality. There's no neutrality available to us. Theologically speaking, men don't naturally interpret their experience of nature in such a way as to reach and affirm correct conclusions about God. The Bible says the natural man cannot know the things of God's Spirit. First Corinthians 2:14. Paul said, there's none who seeks after God. Romans 3, verse 11. In that case, we really shouldn't ever speak of natural theology because, you know, it's natural to man is atheology, not theology. Until men are driven to abandon their intellectual autonomy and to think in terms of the truth of God as their point of reference, they will never read the evidence properly for God's existence. But, but, but. Van Till adds, neither will they be able to make sense of any area of their experience. See, he's not just saying men will never be willing to come to a conclusion about God, trying to use their natural reason in an autonomous fashion, operating upon the brute facts, the raw data out there, he says they'll never be able to know anything either. They've destroyed the possibility of knowing things. And so the theistic proofs should not cater to man's pretended autonomy. Thus, Van Til says, it's important to stress, and I quote, the basic difference between a theistic proof that presupposes God and one that presupposes man as ultimate. There's a basic difference between two types of theistic proof. He's not saying, I don't believe in theistic proof. He's saying, I don't think theistic proof should assume man to be ultimately basically authoritative. But I do believe in proving God. My proof presupposes that God is the ultimate authority. And so Van Till's apologetic is based upon confidence not in natural theology, but in natural revelation. Because Romans 1 does teach us after all that the created order, the world in which we live, is a conduit of constant, inescapable, pre interpreted information about God. So that all men already possess an actual knowledge of God at the very outset of their reality, reasoning about anything whatever. A knowledge which makes possible their very use of evidence and reasoning. And so Van Till asserts, quote, the revelation of God to man is so clear that it has absolute compelling force objectively. And from that standpoint, Van Till says, I do not reject the theistic proofs but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as not to compromise the doctrines of Scripture. Keep that in mind the next time you hear somebody you know very quickly dismiss Van Til as not believing in theistic proofs. That was a quotation. He said, I do not reject the theistic proofs. I just insist on formulating them in a way that's true to my ultimate authority. Scripture, natural revelation is crucial to the formulation of proof for God's existence. And I'll quote Van Till again. God's revelation is everywhere and everywhere perspicuous. Hence the theistic proofs are absolutely valid. They are but the restatement of the revelation of God. That's a great insight. Yes, I'm going to prove God's existence to the natural man. He may not accept it, he may not be persuaded, but I'm going to give him proof. And the kind of proof I give him doesn't cater to his ultimate autonomy. It's a restatement of the revelation of God. It's a way of putting the revelation of God in other terms so that he can see see what the difficulty is with his position if he doesn't accept what the revelation of God is showing him. Far from rejecting theistic proof, Van Till insists upon theistic proof. And in fact he insists upon a very strong version of such a proof. And here's what he says. I quote, the argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid. Please turn the cassette over. At this time we should not tone down the validity of this argument to the probability level. Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold. I love that quote because again, when the critics of Van Till have said he doesn't believe believe in proving God's existence, I'm saying, wow. Not only does he believe in proving it, he says it's objectively valid. It is not just probable and in fact it's the only reasonable position to hold at Some point I have to say this this afternoon. I might as well say it at this point. Isn't there something of a moral scandal in the world of Christian scholarship when something, somebody who can utter categorically a statement with that clarity and boldness is nevertheless pervasively represented by his opponents as not believing in proving God's existence? I think there is, and I've called it a moral scandal. But there is something of an irony to this morals. It's a moral scandal because Christians are supposed to tell the truth and they're supposed to tell the truth about their opponents. I'm not allowed even to tell lies about David Hume as much as he stands or stood categorically opposed to my point of view. We're not allowed to slander our opponents to make them look bad. And so when Christians who are supposed to be defending the Christian approach to life and reasoning turn out to treat their fellow believers with such disdain, downright misrepresentation, distortion of what they believe, I don't think there's much strength to their apologetic. I sometimes, maybe on my more cynical days, I'm feeling weak and depressed. But I've sometimes had occasion to think I can understand why the unbelievers I studied with at the university have no respect for Christian scholarship because I can't have much respect for what's called Christian Christian scholarship. It's shoddy work and we don't even do the favor to one another of telling the truth about each other. But it does illustrate the very thing Van Till has taught us, right? The people are guided by their presuppositions, not by a neutral approach to the evidence. And so people don't go to the evidence from the writings of Van Till. They've got a presupposition about what Van Till be believes, and they end up telling people what their presupposition or their prejudice is rather than what the actual evidence indicates. But okay, enough for that. Aside, let me quote this again for you. The argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid. We should not tone down the validity of this argument to the probability level level. Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold. If men will not intellectually acknowledge that they know and must presuppose God. Their attempts to reason and interpret experience on some other espoused presupposition cannot be made intelligible. And thus Van Till states his proof, quite concluded concisely and forcefully, and I'll quote it for you, the only proof of the Christian position, the only proof of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed, there is no possibility of proving anything at all. That's the strongest form of proof possible. Because what Van Till is saying is proof has as its transcendental the Christian worldview. If you do not have as the precondition of intelligibility the Christian worldview, then your attempt to prove anything for or against Christianity is nonsense. It doesn't make any sense, it's unintelligible. The only proof of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed, there is, there is no possibility of proving anything at all. In short, Van Til's approach is to challenge unbelievers. In the words of Paul, where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Let me give you an example of how we can prove God's existence. The only proof of of God's existence is that without God you couldn't prove anything at all. I debated Gordon Stein at the University of California, Irvine, and in a debate, as you know, you need to present arguments that can be warranted by the laws of logic. Argumentation is tested, evaluated, assessed by the laws of logic. Are you being logical? Are you reasoning in a way which is valid and cogent or not? Then I pointed out, since you want to reason against the Christian worldview, reason against the existence of God. Dr. Stein, we have to point out that your worldview within which you're proposing this argument against God, the way in which your reasoning, your worldview itself precludes the possibility of the laws of logic because your worldview is committed to materialism. Everything is matter in motion. If something is real, it reduces to something that's physical the laws of physics and the matter of which physics is made up. But the laws of logic aren't physical, they aren't matter and number. And therefore the laws of logic don't exist in your worldview. They're not real in your worldview, or if they are real, the laws of logic are only an expression of electrochemical things going on in our brains rather than a universal transpersonal, public standard, universal, enforced, absolute and character. So the laws of logic as we understand them when we do debate, debate, don't exist in your non Christian worldview. And therefore the proof of the Christian God is without Christianity you couldn't have the laws of logic, in which case you couldn't have proof of anything. The very debate in which you were engaged assumes the worldview that you're trying to Refute. If the debate was unbelievers, comes down in principle to a conflict over ultimate presuppositions which control all other reasoning and interpretation. Does all use of rational argumentation cease according to Van Till? Not at all. Not at all. He doesn't follow Kuyper here. Yes, all debate, all reasoning, all argumentation comes down to a conflict over ultimate presuppositions. But in chapter 14 of his survey of Christian Epistemology, which is the first classroom syllabus that he produced, by the way, it was not as though Van till taught for 20, 30, 40 years and finally his critics caught up with him. He said, oh wow, now I need to develop something to answer that. In his very first class sub syllabus he dealt with this problem. In chapter 14 of a survey of Christian Epistemology. He opened by saying, the question that comes up at once is whether it is then of any use to argue about the Christian theistic position at all with those who are of contrary convictions. Ask the question. Vantile forcefully refutes the notion that is useless for the regenerate to reason with the unregenerate, insisting that we must do so. And I quote him, it is exactly because of our deep conviction that God is one and truth is therefore one, that we hold that there is only one type of argument for all men. We must not abandon rational duty, debate with the unbeliever. We cannot choose epistemologies as we choose hats, as if the whole thing is but a matter of taste. You can't just make a leap, an arbitrary subjective leap. So, okay, here's my worldview. Now within this worldview, no one can touch me or somebody else takes a subjective, arbitrary leap to another worldview. And within that one, you can't touch me. We cannot choose epistemologies as we choose hats, as if the thing is but a matter of taste. Rather, according to Van Til, those who hold antithetical presuppositions ought to be refuted by a reasoned argument instead of by ridicule and assumption ought to be refuted and refuted by reasoned argument. Christian commitment is not intellectually ungrounded. Let me quote him again. Faith is not blind faith. Christianity can be shown to be not just as good as or even better than the non Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience. End of quote. So Van Til does not permit the argument for the truth of Christianity to be washed out into subjectivism. And I quote him again, there is objective evidence in abundance and it is sufficiently clear men ought if only they reasoned rightly to come to the conclusion that God exists. That is to say, if the theistic proof is constructed as it ought to be constructed, it is objectively valid. Whatever whatever the attitude of those to whom it comes may be, it's a proof it may not persuade. Whatever the attitude of those to whom this proof comes, it is still objectively valid. And so Van Till is, in the 20th century, perhaps the most rigorous opponent of Feedism to be found in Christianity. Among Christian apologists, an opponent of Fiddism, Feedism is the attitude that says there's no proof, no intellectual proof of Christianity or God's existence. We simply have faith in it. We've made a commitment, we've voluntarily committed ourselves to follow Jesus. But we don't have intellectual proof, and it isn't important that reason be brought into this. Van Till is decidedly critical of what he calls, quote, the feedistic attitude that comes to expression frequently in the statement of the experiential proof of the truth of Christianity. People will say that they know that they are saved and that Christianity is true, no matter what the philosophical or scientific evidence for or against it may be. But in thus seeking to withdraw from all intellectual argument, such fetishists have virtually admitted the validity of the argument against Christianity. They will have to believe in their hearts what they have virtually allowed to be intellectually indefensible. Van Till is no feedist. And yet in a major book, it's been published against Van Til's apologetic, written by John Gerstner and R.C. sproul and Arthur Lindley. The major claim made against Van Till's approach is that it's feedyism. This is the major charge made by John Warwick Montgomery against Van Till. It is the central charge made by Norman Geisler against Van Till. Everybody keeps, you know, circulating the same dirty laundry, but it's dirty. This is not true. Van Till is against feeding and his philosophy, his approach to argumentation, is anything but fideistic. Didn't I just quote him saying there's an absolutely valid proof of God's existence? We must use reasoned argumentation when we deal with the unbeliever. Van Till's commitment to a reasoned, apologetic rather than blind authority is manifest. And I quote him. It might seem that there can be no authority argument between them, the believer and the unbeliever. It might seem that way. It might seem that the orthodox view of authority is to be spread only by testimony and by prayer, not by argument. But this would militate directly against the very foundation of all Christian revelation. And so when Van Til's critics, like Montgomery, say that his approach and the, and I'm quoting Montgomery gives the unbeliever the impression that our gospel is as fideistically irrational as the presuppositional claims of its competitors. Montgomery says, van Til's just got this a priori, prior to experience, prior to observation, feedistic, irrational leap of faith. Therefore, Van Til is giving the impression that we're no better off than our opponents. That's what Van Till says at all. That isn't what Van Till has done. As a matter of fact, since the argument with the unbeliever is finally over, those presuppositions which control all of our reasoning and interpretation, what kind of argument can be rationally employed? It will be an argument regarding the principal preconditions of all intelligible experience, logic, science, ethics, etc. An argument from the impossibility of the contrary. For this, Van Till says, you must use an indirect method of argumentation. I'll quote him. The method of reasoning by presupposition may be said to be indirect rather than direct. The issue between believers and non believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to facts or laws whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference point required to make the facts and laws intelligible, independent of quote. To settle that question, Van Till continues, the believer and unbeliever must, for argument's sake, place themselves on each other's position to see what their respective outworkings are regarding the intelligibility of facts and laws. And so in his very first syllabus, again Bantill put it this way, and I the Reformed men method of argument is first constructive. It presents the biblical view positively by showing that all factual and logical discussions by men take place by virtue of the world's being what God in Christ says it is. It then proceeds, see the two steps, the constructive. And then it proceeds negatively to show that unless all facts and all logical relations be seen in the light of the Christian framework, all human interpretation fails instantly. It fails instantly. In principle, he's not saying that unbelievers stop reasoning, but in principle, in theory, instantly, their position would have to fail. And now to illustrate, for a few moments here, I thought it'd be good for me to read to you from one of the easiest pieces that Van Till ever wrote. I mean, it's readily accessible to any reader and that's his small pamphlet, why I Believe in God. Why I believe in God. Van Till believes in theistic proof, but it doesn't look like the kind of proof that you're accustomed to. He doesn't say, now look, let's all agree that things are in motion. Let's all agree that every event has a cause. And can't we see reasonably that these causes can't go back, you know, infinitely. There must be then a first cause that starts it all off. And that's what we call God. You don't see that kind of thing in his little pamphlet? Indeed. So much so that I've had some students read the pamphlet and say, where's the argument? Because they're looking for the wrong kind of argument. This is a transcendental argument, though he doesn't use that kind of fancy vocabulary. Here on page three of his pamphlet, Van Til says, I'm jumping into the middle of this. I should tell you that the pamphlet takes the form of a hypothetical conversation between Van Till and an unbeliever who claims that he or she doesn't believe in God. Van Till says, now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning anything. I cannot even argue for belief in him without already having taken him for granted. And similarly, I contend that you cannot argue against belief in him unless you also first take him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about error. You may affirm that error exists and and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. And that's very down to earth and simple as an illustration, but it's profound. That's exactly what's going on. He says, although I'm going to argue for God's existence, my point is that you couldn't argue against him or for him if you didn't first take him for granted. You can argue against there being air, but the whole time that you're arguing against the air, you're breathing it. And you can argue against God, but you have to assume him in order to argue against Him. What did I tell you? The three words that summarize the whole thing. Anti theism presupposes theism. Unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. Van Til says. On page four. Vantil says, there is no sense in talking about the existence of God without knowing what kind of God it is who may or may not exist. Crucial. You don't simply try to prove that a God, some God, some kind of force in the universe that exceeds the universe, exist. Because you need to know the nature of this God about whom we are arguing. Why does he lay that down? Because when you look into it, the Christian claim is such that this God doesn't brook any autonomy for man. This God says, you know me, you can't escape me. You're under my control and you're guilty for even asking whether I exist. Now, do you want to entertain the possibility of such a God? You see, to entertain the possibility of that kind of God requires that you'd have to presuppose this God in the first place. Mantle also says on page four, the pamphlet. So I can only undertake to show that even if it does not appear reasonable to you, it is reasonable for you to believe in God. God. That's the distinction that I've been giving you in my language, between proof and persuasion. He says, it may not seem reasonable to you and may not persuade you, but what I'm going to show is that it's reasonable for you. It is proof nonetheless. And then he says, I see you're getting excited. You feel a little like a man who's about to undergo a major operation. You, you realize that if you are to change your belief about God, you will also have to change your belief about yourself. And you are not quite ready for that. That's the situation when we argue with people. If they're going to entertain the possibility of this kind of God, then they're going to have to change their view of themselves. And they're not willing to just change their view of themselves. We have time. I hope we will today. We'll get around to what is one of the major difficulties in the presuppositional approach. And that is how can we make sense out of people knowing God and yet not knowing God at the same time? And I will argue it's because men deceive themselves. But to deceive yourself, you must be in the grip of a motivation to protect a certain view of yourself. And that's why you don't want to entertain the evidence that is out there, because it would interfere with your own self conception. Van Tua says you would have to change your belief about yourself. And that's not what you want to do. He says, but you might follow my argument just for argument's sake. These clothes. He says, look, I already realize that you may not want to change your privileged beliefs. You may not want to change your presuppositions. You may not want to entertain such an absolute God as I'm talking about, because that would mean you have to change your view of yourself. But you can still understand my argument. For argument's sake, follow along here. On page seven. Van Till explains from his early schooling and the story of his life. He said, in short, the whole wide world that gradually opened up for me through my schooling was regarded as operating in its very aspect, in its every aspect. I'll get it right under the direction of the all powerful and all wise God, whose child I was. Through Christ I was to learn to think God's thoughts afterwards him in every field of endeavor. Many people would look at that and say, that's just an irrelevant piece of biography. It's not at all if you begin to understand what I've been teaching you. Explaining to people this is the way we as Christians see things is part of the apologetic we're trying to get them to see. Our God requires us to see everything, every aspect of history, every aspect of experience, science, everything in the light. What he teaches. Mantle on that same page. A few few sentences later, having referred to the naturalistic training his hypothetical opponent has had, he says, of course you know better. Now you realize that all that was purely imaginary. To be without bias is only to have a particular kind of bias. And that sentence is crucial for those who say we don't have any presuppositions, we are neutral, we have no prejudices, we have no bias. He says, that's just a particular kind of prejudice, a particular kind of bias in itself. And what it is used to do is to hide a negative attitude toward God. Dante says, at least it ought to be plain that he who is not for the God of Christianity is against him. You see, the God of Christianity makes such prodigious claims. He says the whole world belongs to him, that you're his creature and as such are to own up to that fact by honoring Him. Whether you eat or drink or do anything else, God says that you live, as it were, on his estate, and his estate has long large ownership signs placed everywhere. So he who goes by, even at 70 miles an hour, cannot but read them. Every fact in this world, the God of the Bible claims, has his stamp indelibly engraved upon it. How could you then be neutral with respect to such a God? You see, the claim to neutrality is already a denial of the God of the Bible. Then later Van Til says, after all, I'm only asking you to See what is involved in the Christian conception of God. All I'm doing here is asking you to stand within my worldview and understand what my worldview says when my worldview demands of us, who are Christians, to understand what kind of God we believe in. If the God of Christianity exists, exist, the evidence for existence is abundant and plain so that it is both unscientific and sinful not to believe in him. Get that? It's unscientific, it's irrational as well as immoral not to believe in him. And then Van Til says, the reason therefore why everybody does not believe in him must be that everybody's blinded by sin. See, if you work within our worldview, we're not impressed when you say, but not everybody believes in God because within our worldview we already start with the assumption that God is so plainly revealed that everybody must believe in Him. For those who say they don't believe in him, we conclude are sinners. They're in rebellion against God. All we have to do, if I can pick up from what Van Til's saying, is show the coherence of our outlook. We just have to show we've got a way of dealing with all this counter evidence that you bring in. Heap up all the counter evidence you want, and within our worldview, it doesn't refute us. Did you say, well, a lot of people don't believe in God? And we say, yes, people are sinful, so they don't believe in God. What you've just presented to us then as evidence that supports our worldview, you, the unbeliever, will say, oh, but there's all this wickedness in the world and so forth. We'll say, yeah, but within our worldview, God's got a morally sufficient reason for what he has ordained to take place. Oh, well then what is that reason the unbeliever wants to know? We say, well, but within our worldview, God doesn't owe us an answer to that. I mean, it will be a problem for you because you think you're the final judge. It'll be a problem for you, you to accept God if he doesn't give you his answer for final judgment. But it's not a problem for us. We accept it. That's part of the life of faith. Saying God has his reasons, doesn't always tell us what they are. And so then on page 10 of the pamphlet, Mantill comes to the end of the story of his life and how he's, you know, come to believe and think the way that he does. And he says, the telling of this story has helped, I trust, to make the best basic question simple and plain. You know pretty clearly now what sort of God it is of which I am speaking to you. Emphasize that again in your apologetic. You must lay out clearly the worldview differences. If you don't talk about the kind of God you're defending, you're always going to get sucked up into the autonomous approaches to apologetics that want to prove a God of some sort. Mantill says, you need to know the sort of God that I'm arguing and talking about. If my God exists, it was he who was back of my parents and teachers. It was he who conditioned all the conditioned me in my early life. What he's referring to here is the. The attempt to psychologize Christian belief. You know, people will say, oh, yeah, here's why you believe those things. You know, you had an inadequate earthly father, you need a substitute father in heaven. Or, you know, your parents brought you up this way. So Van Til says, well, you know, maybe all that's true. Maybe I did have an inadequate father, or maybe I did have parents who conditioned me to believe this way. But you see, on my worldview, I have a view that says God conditioned all those who were conditioning me. And so it was all part of his plan that I come to believe him in that way. That's just a devastating reputation of the unbeliever. I mean, it takes any sting or strength out of the unbeliever's thrust. You say, well, but within my worldview, even what you say is true doesn't change anything. But then it was he also who conditioned everything that conditioned you in your early life. God, the God of Christianity, is the All Conditioner. As the all conditioner, God is the all conscious One. A God who is to control all things must control them by the counsel of his will. If he did not do this, He Himself would be conditioned. So then I hold, and this is where the coin should drop for you. So then I hold that my belief in him and your disbelief in him are alike meaningless except for Him. How do I know God exists? Because my belief in him would be unintelligible apart from that. And by the way, your disbelief in him would be unintelligible apart from his existence. And then on page 10, Van Til began to raise, or to consider the objections that are raised against what he has said. And at one point on page 11, he refers to the matter of test or standard. We have objections now he says, we need to have a test or a standard. By which we weigh these objections. The point is this. Not believing in God we have seen you do not think yourself to be God's creature and not believing in God you do not think the universe has been created by God. That is to say, you think of yourself and the world as just being there. Now, if you actually are God's creature, then your present attitude, this message is.