Dr Greg Bahnsen - Van Til's Presupp Apologetic: Biblical Considerations, Part 2 (Part 2)

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. Unqualified, isolated elements of the truth. That the Zeus of Stoic pantheism was a conceptual step toward the true God Jehovah of the Old Testament. Berkower says this is to be explained only in connection with the fact that the heathen poets have distorted the truth of God. Without this truth, there would be no false religiousness. This should not be confused with the idea that false religion contains elements of the truth and gets its strength from those elements. This kind of quantitative analysis neglects the nature of the distortion carried on by false religion. Pseudo religion witnesses to the truth of God in its apostasy. Within the ideological context of Stoicism and pantheism, of course, the declaration of the pagan philosophers about God were not true. And Paul was surely not committing the logical fallacy of equivocation by using pantheistically conceived premises to support a biblically theistic conclusion. Rather, Paul appealed to the distorted teachings of the pagan authors as evidently that the process of theological distortion cannot fully rid men of their natural knowledge of God. Certain expressions of the pagans manifest this knowledge as suppressed within the philosophical context espoused by the ungodly writer. The expressions were put to a false use within the framework of God's revelation, a revelation clearly received by all men, but hindered in unrighteousness. These expressions properly express the truth of God. And so Paul didn't utilize pagan ideas. He used pagan expression to demonstrate that ungodly thinkers have not eradicated all idea, albeit suppressed and distorted by the living and true God. FF Bruce puts it this Epimenides and Aratus are not invoked as authorities in their own right. Certain things which they said, however, can be understood as pointing to the knowledge of God. But the knowledge of God presented in the speech is not rationalistically conceived or established. It is the knowledge of God taught by Hebrew prophets and sages. It is rooted in the fear of God. It belongs to the same order as truth, goodness and covenant love. For lack of it, men and women perish in the coming day. God will fill the earth as the waters cover the sea with it. The delicately suited allusions. The Stoic and Epicurean tenets which have been discerned in the speech, like the quotations from pagan poets, have their place as points of contact with the audience, but they do not commit the speaker to acquiescence in the realm of ideas to which they originally belonged. Dr. Stonehouse observed the apostle Paul, reflecting upon their creaturehood and upon their religious faith and practice, could discover within their pagan religiosity evidences that the pagan poets, in the very act of suppressing and perverting the truth, presupposed a measure of awareness of it. The men are engulfed by God's clear revelation. Try as they may, the truth which they possess in their heart of hearts cannot be escaped. Inadvertently it comes to expression. They don't explicitly understand it properly, but these very expressions are a witness to their inward conviction and culpability. I apologize for that rapidity of the presentation, but we have limited time and so much wealth of material. What I've been saying thus far was, let me just kind of encapsulate all this is that from a topical standpoint we know that Paul believed and pressed the antithesis of the presuppositions, the believer versus the unbeliever. That he saw. The ignorance of the unbeliever took as his starting point. Revelation authority, spoke of the suppression of the truth, and argued from the impossibility of the contrary the truth of the Christian position. Thus far in the Areopagus address we see that he was not only kind and respectful in his approach, but he was philosophical in his orientation. He stressed the unbelievers ignorance, the authority of revelational knowledge, their culpable suppression of the truth. And we come now to the point the use of scriptural presuppositions in Acts 17:24,31 Paul's language is principally based on the Old Testament. There's very little justification for the remark of Lake and Cadbury that this discourse used a secular style of speech, omitting quotations from the Old Testament. I don't understand how they can say that. Paul's utilization of Old Testament materials is rather conspicuous. For instance, we can clearly see Isaiah 42:5 coming to expression in the 24th and 25th verses. Let me give you a comparison. Isaiah 40:2 Thus saith God, Jehovah, he that created the heavens and stretched them forth he that spread abroad the earth, and that which cometh out of it he that giveth breath unto the people upon it. Paul says in verses 24 and 25 the God that made the world and all things therein he being Lord of heaven and earth, giveth to all life and breath and all things. In the Isaiah of Pericope, the prophet goes on to indicate that the Gentiles can be likened to men with eyes blinded by a dark dungeon. Isaiah 42:7 and in the Areopagus address, Paul goes on to say that if men seek after God it is as though they are groping in darkness. That sense of feeling after him. Isaiah's development of thought continues on to the declaration that God's praise ought not to be given to graven images. While Paul's address advances to the statement that we ought not to think that the Godhead is likened to gold or silver are stone graven by the art and device of men? It surely seems as though the prophetic pattern of thought is in the back of the Apostles mind at least. FF Bruce comments He does not argue from the sort of first principles which form the basis of the various schools of Greek philosophy. His exposition and defense of his message are founded on the biblical revelation of God. Unlike some later apologists who followed in his steps, Paul does not cease to be fundamentally biblical in his approach to the Greeks, even when, as on this occasion, his biblical emphasis might appear to destroy his chances of success. Those who have been trained to think that the apologist must adjust his epistemological authority or method in terms of the mindset of his hearers as he finds them will find the Areopagus address quite surprising. In that respect they can Although Paul is addressing an audience which is not committed or even predisposed to the revealed Scriptures of the Old Testament, speaking to enlightened, educated Gentiles, his speech is nevertheless a typically Jewish polemic regarding God, idolatry and judgment. Using Old Testament language and concepts, Paul declared that God is the Creator, a spirit who does not reside in man made houses. God is self sufficient and all men are dependent upon Him. He created all men from a common ancestor and is the Lord of history. Paul continued to speak, not to teach God's disapprobation for idolatry, his demand for repentance, and his appointment of a final day of judgment. In these respects Paul did not say anything that an Old Testament prophet could not have addressed to the Jews. And I could go through as I have here in my pipe notes and give you numerous illustrations for this, but I think that the point is well enough made and I will skip that. Consistent with his teaching in the Epistles, Paul remained on solid Christian ground. When he disputed with the philosophers, he reasoned from the Scriptures, thereby refuting any supposed dichotomy in its apologetic method between his approach to the Jews and his approach to the Gentiles. In any and all apologetic encounters, Paul began and ended with God. He was himself for no instant, neutral. Next, I want you to notice that Paul presses the antithesis. Now the themes of Paul's address in Acts 17 parallel the themes of Romans 1 rather obviously. Creation, providence, man's dependence, man's sin, future judgment. Paul boldly sets the revelational perspective over against the themes of Athenian philosophy. The statements of Paul's Areopagus address could hardly have been better calculated to reflect biblical theology while contradicting the doctrines of pagan philosophy. Paul did not appeal to Stoic doctrines in order to divide his audience, a ploy that he used, by the way, in Acts 23, trying to divide his audience. Rather, he philosophically offended both the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in his audience, pressing teachings which were directly antithetical to their distinctives. Let me illustrate. Against the monism of the philosophers, Paul taught that God had created all things that precluded the materialism of the Epicureans and the pantheism of the Stoics. And yet people tell us he was appealing to common notions against naturalistic and immanentistic views. Paul proclaimed supernatural transcendence. As his listeners looked upon the Parthenon, Paul declared, God doesn't dwell in temples made with hand and were to believe he appealed to common notions. God needs nothing from man. On the contrary, man depends on God for everything. Paul says the philosophers of Athens should thus do all things to God's glory, inclusive of bringing every thought captive to him and renouncing their putative economy. Paul's teaching of the unity of the human race was quite a blow to the Athenian pride in their being indigenous to the soil of Attica. It assaulted their felt superiority over what they called barbarians. Paul's insistence that God was not far from any would deflate the Stoic pride in his elitist knowledge of God. Over against a uniform commitment to the concept of fate, Paul set forth the biblical doctrine of God's providence. God is not remote from or indifferent to the world of men. Notice as well, upon the legendary founding of the Areopagus court, Apollo had declared, so we read in Aeschylus, when the dust drinks up a man's blood, once he has died, there is no resurrection. That's. Upon the founding of the Areopagus court, however, the apostle Paul forcefully announced the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a fact which he said assures all men that he'll judge the world at the consummation. A doctrine, by the way, which was contravened by the Greek. Well, contravened, excuse me, the Greek view of cyclical and eternal history. The Epicureans were deceived to think that at death man's body simply decomposed, which was a cardinal Epicurean doctrine. And that thus there was no fear of judgment. The resurrection refuted their ideas, just as it disproved the notion that the body is a disdainful prison. Throughout Paul's address, the common skepticism about theological knowledge found in the philosophical schools was obviously challenged by Paul's pronounced authority and ability to openly proclaim the final truth about God. The amazing thing is, to a student of the history of philosophy, is that Paul didn't seem to be trying to get along with these people at all. He pressed and pressed and pressed the difference between him and his hearers. And then he calls for repentance, calls for the change of a mindset. One can hardly avoid the conclusion that Paul was not seeking areas of agreement, common notions with his hearers. At every point he set a biblical position, virtually quoting the Old Testament and an antithetical contrast to the philosophical beliefs of his hearers, undermining their assumptions and exposing their ignorance, as he called it. He did not seek to add further truths to a pagan found of elementary truth. He rather challenged the foundations of pagan philosophy when he called them to full repentance. Verse 30. The New Era which has commenced with the advent and ministry of Jesus Christ, has put an end to God's historical overlooking of nations which lives in unbelief. At Lystra, Paul declared that in past generations God allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways, although now he was calling them to turn from their vanities to the living God. Previously, God had shown forbearance toward the sins of the Jews as well. However, with the advent of Christ, there's been a new beginning. Sins once committed in culpable ignorance have been made even less excusable by the redemptive realities of the Gospel. Even in the past, God's forbearance ought to have led men to repentance. How much more then should men now respond to their guilt by repenting before God for their sin? The lenience of God demonstrates that his concentration of effort is toward the salvation rather than the judgment of men. This mercy and patience must not be spurned. Men everywhere are now required to repent. In Paul's perspective on redemptive history, he can simply say by way of summary, now is the acceptable time. As guilty as men had been in the past, God had passed over confrontation with them. Unlike in Israel, messengers had not come to upbraid the Gentiles and declare the punishment they deserved. God had overlooked the former times of ignorance, whereas in the past he had allowed the pagans to walk in their own ways. Now with the perfect Revelation which has come in Jesus Christ. God commands repentance, a change of mind from all men, and he sends messengers to them. To that end, Paul wanted the philosophers at Athens to not simply refine their thinking a bit further and add some missing information to it, but rather to abandon their presupposition, have a complete change of mind, submit to the clear and authoritative revelation of God, and turn around in your attitudes. If they would not repent, it would be an indication of their love of their ignorance and their hatred of truth. Paul's appeal to them to repent was grounded not in autonomous argumentation, you see, but the presupposed authority of God's Son, an authority for which there was none more ultimate in Paul's reasoning. Paul's hearers were told that they must repent, for God had appointed a day of final judgment. If the philosophers did not undergo a radical shift in their mindset, if they did not confess their sinfulness before God, they would have to face the wrath of God on the final day of reckoning. To whom would they have to give an account? At that point, Paul introduced his Son of Man eschatology. As we see it in the Gospels, the judgment would take place by a man, literally a male, who had been ordained to this function by God. This is the Son of man mentioned in Daniel 7. In John 5:27, Christ spoke of himself, saying that the Father gave him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of man. After his resurrection, Christ charged the apostles to preach unto the people and to testify that this is he who is ordained of God to be the judge of the living and the dead. Acts 10:42. Paul declared that same truth in his areopagus. Apologetic going on to indicate that God had given assurance. He had given proof of the fact that Christ would be mankind's final judge. What is that proof that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. To be accurate, it is important to note that the resurrection functioned as evidence in Paul's argumentation. It was not the conclusion of his argumentation. Again, I can only shake my head when I hear tapes by R.C. sproul or read books by others in which they use the areopagus address to verify the idea or to confirm the idea that we're to argue for the resurrection in evidential fashion. Note that Paul was arguing not for the resurrection, but for the final judgment by Christ. The misleading assumption made by many popular apologists today is that Paul here engaged in in an attempted proof of the resurrection. Although nothing of the sort is mentioned by Luke. Proof by means of the Resurrection is mistakenly seen in verse 31 as proof of the resurrection. Completely different logically have nothing in common. Others know better than to read such an argument into the text and hold that rather a detailed proof of the resurrection was cut short by Paul's address. This is what you find in Blalock and his Acts historical commentary. He says Paul wanted to use the resurrection argument, but it was cut short. He would have, but we don't get evidence of it after all. It seems to me, however, that such an interpretation gains whatever plausibility it has with an interpreter in terms of preconceived notions, not in terms of textual support. FF Roofs remarks, there is no ground for supposing that the ridicule with which some of his hearers received his reference to Jesus rising from the dead seriously curtailed the speech he intended to make. In fact, there's no hint at all that Paul was interrupted. The speech, as it was intended is inherently quite complete in the text we have. Obviously Luke is summarizing nobody. Well, I don't think anybody seriously believes that. He just took down word for word what Paul said. But Luke doesn't leave out any important points. Paul proclaimed that Christ had been appointed the final judge of mankind, as his resurrection from the dead evident. The apostle did not supply an empirical argument for the resurrection. He argued theologically from the fact of the resurrection to the final judgment. For Paul, even in apologetical disputes before unbelieving philosophers, there was no authority more ultimate than that of Christ. The epistemological attitude was most appropriate in light of the fact that Christ would be the ultimate judge of every man's thought and belief. Okay, what's the outcome? Now we've looked in some detail at the Ariopolis address. What happens when Paul takes this approach? Verse 32. Now, when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, but others said, we'll hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out from among them, but certain men claim unto him and believed, among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with him. Had Paul spoken of the immortality of the soul, his message might have appeared plausible to at least some of the philosophers in his audience. However, all disdained the idea of a resuscitation of a corpse. When Paul concluded his discourse with reference to the resurrection of Christ, such an apparent absurdity led some believers to sneer an open mockery of Paul. There is some question as to what should be made of another reaction mentioned by Luke, namely that some said they would Hear Paul again on this matter. This may have been polite procrastination, serving as a brush off, an indication that this segment of the audience was confused or bewildered with the message. Or it's evidence perhaps, that some wistfully hoped that Paul's proclamation might prove to be true one way or another. It should not have been thought impossible by anybody in Paul's audience that God could raise the dead, however. But as long as this philosophical assumption controlled their thinking, the philosophers would never be induced to accept the fact of the resurrection or allow it to make a difference in their outlook. Until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner and brings him to repentance, his presuppositions will remain unaltered. And as long as the unbelievers presuppositions are unchanged, a proper acceptance and understanding of the good news of Christ's historical resurrection will be quite impossible. The Athenian philosophers had originally asked Paul for an account of his doctrine of the resurrection. After his reasoned defense of the hope within him and his challenge to the philosopher's presuppositions, a few were turned around in their thinking. But many refused to correct their presuppositions. So that when Paul concluded with Christ's resurrection, they ridiculed and mocked. You see, acceptance of the facts is governed by one's most ultimate assumptions, as Paul was well aware. Paul began his apologetic with God in his revelation. He concluded its apologetic with God in his revelation. The Athenian philosophers began their dispute with Paul in an attitude of cynical unbelief about Christ's resurrection. They concluded the dispute in cynical unbelief about Christ's resurrection. However, Paul knew and demonstrated that the closed system of the philosophers was a matter of dialectical pseudo wisdom was a matter of ignorance. Their view that God dwelt in impenetrable mystery undermined their detailed teaching about him. Paul says, you know nothing about this God, right? And yet you say so much about him. Their view that historical eventuation was a matter of irrational faith was contravened by the conviction that all things were mechanistically determined in their wisdom they had simply become utterly ignorant of the ultimate truth. Paul knew that the explanation of this hostility to God's revelation, even though people are unable to escape its forcefulness, was to be found in their desire to exercise control over God. Like verse 29 says, they make their gods by their own art and device and they wanted to avoid facing up to the fact they deserved judgment before the seat of God. They secretly hoped, as we say, that ignorance would be bliss. They preferred Darkness to light. And so Paul went out from among them. The minds of the Athenian philosophers could not be changed simply by appealing to a few disputed particular facts, for their philosophical presuppositions determined what they would make of the facts. Nor could their minds be altered by reasoning with them on the basis of their own fundamental assumptions. For to make common cause with their philosophy would simply have been to confirm their commitment to that philosophy. You see, if Paul would have come in and flattered Epicurean and Stoic philosophy, what they would have concluded is, well, we're quite all right then, Paul, you too see that we are right. Their minds could be changed only by challenging their whole way of thought with a completely different worldview of the gospel, calling them to renounce the inherent foolishness of their own philosophy and repent for their suppression of the truth. Now, that kind of complete mental revolution, allowing for a well grounded and philosophically defensible knowledge of the truth, can be accomplished by the grace of God. Paul speaks of it in 2 Timothy 2. And thus Luke informs us that as Paul left the Areopagus meeting, certain men clave unto him and believed. Although many people don't see it this way, I believe that's a note of triumph in Luke's observation, because Luke is saying all the philosophers mock, but no, not all. Some believe he mentions conspicuously that a member of the Areopagus council, Dionysius, became a Christian, as well as a woman who was well enough known to be mentioned by name, Damaris. These were but some converts, as Luke says, among others. And so it's quite plain that Paul's work was not feudal by God's grace, did see success, and his apologetic method can be a guide and I hope a goad for us today. Would that we had the boldness in a proud university setting like Paul's, enjoying the highest level of the culture of the day, to proclaim clearly to the learned philosophers of our age, with all of the greatness of their minds, that they are in fact ignorant idolaters who must repent in light of the coming judgment by God's resurrected Son. We need a biblical epistemological method. And as I see it, for Paul that means stressing the ignorance of unbelief, the authority of revelational knowledge, culpable suppression of the truth, presupposing the truth of Scripture, pressing our antithesis with unbelievers, calling for a complete change of mind on their part, and recognizing that only by the grace of God will success be seen. Now, thirdly, in tonight's lecture I would like to look at what Dr. Van Till says we should do in apologetics. Van Till calls for a transcendental presuppositionalism. See if I can explain that to you. Dr. Van Til answers the basic question of methodology in apologetics in a number of his writings. And when he talks about method, he always says it must be a presuppositional method. The difficulty, of course, is that a lot of people use the word presupposition, and we're going to be talking about some of them this week in later lectures. Not everybody who argues by presupposition argues by presupposition, even as not all Israel is Israel, I guess. You see, the words are used in two different ways. At least two different ways, probably more. When Dr. Van Teel speaks of arguing by presupposition, it would be helpful for you always to remember, just because the word is so awkward, you'll know that there's something different. He means arguing by transcendental presuppositionalism, and we'll see what that means as we go along. The foundation of Christian thinking is taken to be the presupposed truth of God's inspired word. And that presupposition, says Dr. Van Till, stands over against the autonomous effort of the unbeliever. And so let me quote for you here. In the last analysis, we shall have to choose between two theories of knowledge. According to the one theory, God is the final court of appeal. According to the other theory, man is the final court of appeal. That's the defense of the faith. Page 51. Now, the approach that says that God is the final court of appeal holds that there are two levels of thought, the absolute level and the derivative level. And thus man must think God's thoughts after him in a receptively reconstructive manner. The approach that says that man's thought is ultimate holds to the normative quality of man's mind and the ultimacy of his authority, and thus that he should seek to be creatively constructive in his interpretation of reality. And now I quote again. The essence of the non Christian position is that man is assumed to be ultimate or autonomous. Man is thought of as the final reference point in predication, which is a word you don't hear unless you study philosophy, and in some departments you don't even hear about it. Then predication. If I say the barn is red, I predicated redness of the barn. Such a simple matter as predication is impossible on the autonomous basis of philosophy. Van Til says. He says the Protestant Doctrine of God requires that it be made foundational to everything else as a principle of explanation. If God is self sufficient, he alone is self explanatory. And if he alone is self explanatory, then he must be the final reference point in all human predication. He is then like the sun from which all lights on earth derive their power of illumination. That's from the Christian Theory of knowledge. Page 12. The presuppositionalist must challenge the would be autonomous man with the fact that only upon the presupposition of God and his revelation can intelligibility be preserved in his effort to understand and interpret the world. Christian truth is the transcendental necessity of man's epistemological effort. Now I'm going to read a quote and explain it. Mantle says, now the only argument for an absolute God that holds water is a transcendental argument. Thus the transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have in order to be what it is. A truly transcendent God and a transcendental method go hand in hand. And that's from the Survey of Christian Epistemology, page 11. Till his presuppositional defense of the faith would allow him to start with any fact whatsoever and challenge his opponent to take that fact and give an intelligible interpretation of it. The presuppositionalist seeks to show the unbeliever that his epistemology reduces to absurdity and nothing less than that will do, standing firmly within the circle of Christianity's presupposed truth. And now I'm quoting Van Till. We reason from the Impossibility of the Contrary, Survey of Christian Epistemology, pages 204 and 5. That is the most fundamental and the most effective way to defend the faith. And so Manchul says, and I quote at length. How then, we ask, is the Christian to challenge this non Christian approach to the interpretation of human experience? He can do so only if he shows that man must presuppose God as the final reference point in predication, otherwise he would destroy experience itself. He can do so only if he shows the non Christian that even in his virtual negation of God he is still really presupposing God. He can do so only if he shows the non Christian that he cannot deny God unless he first affirms him, and that his own approach throughout its history has been shown to be destructive of human experience itself. Mansell says we must argue from the impossibility of the contrary. We must argue that everything other than the Christian position is impossible. By the way, that long quote comes from the Christian Theory of knowledge, page 13, if you were taking notes. What does this mean? Well, I think I can put it in a sentence. It's very dangerous. Man Till is a very profound philosopher in my attempt to put it all down to one sentence is obviously only a teaching device for you, but I think it can be put this. The only proof of the Christian God is that without him you can't prove anything at all. We don't prove that God exists, that the Christian God exists from certain empirical facts or from certain logical constructs or certain human psychological experiences. But rather we prove that without that God forming your worldview, you couldn't make sense of your experience, the facts, or your logic. The proof of the Christian God is without him you couldn't prove anything at all. That's what's called a transcendental argument. There aren't a whole lot of them in the history of philosophy, although there are some. Interestingly enough, for all of Dr. Van Til's disdain for Immanuel Kant, rightly so, Immanuel Kant was attempting to present a transcendental argument. He wanted to argue from the preconditions of knowledge. And although Van Till is no Kantian by any means, that's what he's doing as well. He's arguing from the preconditions of knowledge. He says, and I quote from the defenses of faith 116 and 117. To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one's method. The Reformed apologist will frankly admit that his own methodology presupposes the truth of Christian theism. In spite of this claim to neutrality on the part of the non Christian, the Reformed apologist must point out that every method, the supposedly neutral one, no less than any other, presupposes either the truth or the falsity of Christian theism. 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. Instead of going to certain facts, certain laws, and moving from them into the circle of Christian commitment, Van Till says, we must rather argue that without the circle of Christian commitment, facts and laws don't make sense, are not intelligible have no meaning. Now this is exactly what, according to Dr. Van Till, Romanism and Arminianism, inconsistent evangelicalism cannot do. He says Roman Catholics and Arminians, appealing to the reason of the natural man as the natural man himself interprets his reason, namely as autonomous, are bound to use the direct method of approach. You understand what the direct method is. I directly appeal to this fact and from it I can infer the truth of Christianity or appeal to these laws, and I can argue directly to the truth of Christianity. Van Til says this is what you would expect given an autonomous interpretation of man's reason, this method that assumes the essential correctness of the non Christian and non theistic conception of reality. The Reformed apologist, on the other hand, appealing to that knowledge of the true God in the natural man which the natural man suppresses by means of his assumption of ultimacy, will also appeal to the knowledge of the true method which the natural man knows, but suppresses the he suppresses his knowledge of himself as he truly is. He is a man with an iron mask. A true method of apologetics must seek to tear off that iron mask. The Roman Catholic and the Arminian make no attempt to do so. They even flatter its wearer about his fine appearance. And Roman Catholic apologists, in the introduction of their books on apologetics, Arminian as well as Roman Catholic apologists frequently seek to set their opponents at ease by assuring them that their method in its field is all that any Christian could desire. In contradistinction from this, the Reformed apologist will point out again and again, and I would add again and again and again, that the only method that will lead to the truth in any field is that method which recognizes the fact that man is a creature of God and that he must therefore seek to think God thought after him. That's the fundamental difference between Van Till and every other evangelical writing today is that every other one says, look, you're perfectly all right when it comes to your use of logic or your empirical method or your psychological method or whatever it may be. Let's just use that and see if it will take us to Christianity. And Van Til says, you're not all right in your use of logic. You're not all right in your use of empirical methods. You can't make sense of logic or empiricism without the Christian worldview. The only method that will lead to the truth in any field is that method which recognizes the fact that man is a creature of God and must therefore seek to think God's thoughts after him that's presuppositional transcendentalism, arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. Van Till says we must defend Christianity as a eunuch. If you've read his writings, you will know that phraseology he means by that we must defend the whole Christian worldview, not piece by piece, but the whole worldview. We set that worldview over against every other competing worldview. And what do we say? Well, the answer, I think, is found in biblical language very nicely. It's not exactly the way Dr. Van Til puts it, but I think it is the essence of what he's saying. You'll find it in Proverbs 26:4,5. And there the writer of Proverbs says, answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. You don't answer the fool according to that which makes him so foolish. You don't answer him by his folly. Now, what is it that makes the undue lever foliage? His autonomy, his rejection of God, his demanding of proof of the God that will demand of him proof on the final day? So you don't go to the fool and say, well, you're perfectly all right to put God in the dock. You be the judge for a while. We think we can vindicate him. We think God will pass the judgment. Just tell us what standards you'd like us to use. We'll do our best for him. No, you don't answer the fool according to his folly. Because what happens when you try to answer fools by their folly? You become foolish too, lest you be like unto him. If Paul had gone to Athens and had used Stoic philosophy to try to prove Christianity, he would have ended up proving Stoic philosophy using baptized Christian terminology. So you don't answer the fool according to his folly. You don't use his presupposition. And now the writer of the Proverbs apparently contradicts himself. He says, answer a fool according to his folly. Don't do it, but do it. Well, I think the answer to this alleged or this apparent contradiction is that there are two steps intended. One, you don't answer according to his folly. You answer according to your own presuppositions. And then secondly, answer according to his presuppositions. Why? Lest he be wise in his own conceit, show him where his presuppositions take him, to use our technical jargon, do an internal critique of his philosophy, take his presuppositions and drive them to absurdity, lest he think he's perfectly all right just the way he is lest he be wise in his own critique. What Dr. Van Till says is that you take the Christian system as a unit and you defend it by arguing that without it you couldn't prove anything. You answer the fool according to his folly by showing what happens when he uses autonomous systems of thought, defend it as a unit and use the indirect method, what is called over here the transcendental method, from the impossibility of the contrary. Vangel stresses the self attestation of Scripture. He stresses the idea of the challenge of the gospel to autonomous thinking, the necessity of a revelational epistemology. And he wants to press the antithesis between the believer and the unbeliever. It's at this point that many of Dr. Bantill's critics say, well, this is a very strong apologetic. It sounds like, you know, it's dynamite. The difficulty is that if it's true, the unbeliever shouldn't know anything at all. And if there's anything that's obvious about the world, the unbeliever knows quite a bit. In fact, in some fields he seems to know an awful lot more than believers do. Well, if you go back and read Dr. Van Till at this point, you will see that he too squirmed with that. It's amazing to me how often he says the unbeliever knows in some sense. In fact, in the defense of the faith. Well, I won't take time to look it up. You will notice that he, in the original edition, argues that his opponents are coming at him in two different directions. On the one hand, he says, my opponents say that I don't think the unbeliever knows anything at all. But on the other hand, my opponents say that I've been using unbelieving philosophy as the foundation of my thought. A strange thing to do for somebody who thinks unbelievers don't know anything, isn't it? To go and run to use their philosophy. Man Til says, it is certainly an awkward point. We need to say the unbeliever knows and yet he doesn't know in some sense. Well, it's just because that's such a crucial point in Man Till's apologetic that I wrote my doctoral dissertation on that subject. I thought that was a crucial missing link in the discussion that he gives us, although it is certainly scriptural. And then you see it in Paul. Paul says unbelievers know God and yet they don't know God. In fact, they won't come to know God. Paul says, and yet he says, on the other hand, they do Know God. And so in my doctoral dissertation I discussed the philosophical notion of self deception. What does it mean to know and yet not know something? And tonight there isn't time to go over all of that, although I do believe Westminster Media will have a tape of a couple of lectures I did on the subject of self deception 3 years ago when I was in this area then. And so if you want to pursue that further, I would encourage you to do that. Basically, the answer is the unbeliever believes in the Christian God. He does so Paul tells us in Romans 1, because God's made it manifest to him and doesn't have any defense for not doing so. He believes in the Christian God, but he does not believe that he believes in the Christian God. One is a belief about God and the other is a belief about himself. And yes, they are in conflict, but no, they are not contradictory. It's perfectly possible for somebody to believe in the Christian God and yet not know or believe that he believes in the Christian God. Let me give you an illustration. Let's say I apply for a job and on the job application I'm asked the question, do you believe that women are inferior? And I, priding myself in my enlightened, modern, tolerant attitudes, say of course not. Then somebody reads the application who knows me well, hopefully knows the hypothetical me here, not really, but somebody who knows that I in fact treat my wife as just a mouse, you know, to be kept in a corner and to come out when I need a certain, you know, service or the table set or whatever it may be. And whenever women express opinions, I say, yeah, what do you express of a woman? You know, they expect of a woman, that sort of thing. And they come to me and they say, now wait a minute, you said on this forum you don't think women are inferior and yet everything you do shows the opposite. You really do believe they're inferior. You chauvinist. Look at the way you act. Now if that is true, if you may believe that never happens, if nobody's ever inconsistent in that way, that it's such a pervasive part of human nature. In fact, psychologists of the world wouldn't be busy if that weren't true. It's such a pervasive feature of human experience. Did you know it's true? But how do you account for it? Well, I have two beliefs. One's about women and another's about me. About me. I think, hey, I'm an alright guy. I don't make the kind of mistake that those old fashioned guys did. About women, but about women, I think they're just as bad as the old fashioned guys thought. And the unbeliever is just like that. I think the unbeliever is too enlightened to believe in God, although he does. What does that mean? He's too enlightened to think of himself. That he would believe in God or the Christian God, and yet he does. So Dr. Van Til will not put it exactly that one in his writing, but I would be the first one to challenge anybody to show me in his writings that that isn't what he means. He does say the believer knows, after a fashion. He knows in some sense, and yet he doesn't know. And because he suppresses the truth and unrighteousness, there is a knowledge of God that allows for him to know things about the world. He knows the world out there is going to be uniform, that the laws of logic are universal things that are important to epistemology. He knows that because he knows a God who makes the world that way. And yet he claims there is no such God. And so, on the one level of espoused presuppositions, answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit, take what he claims to be true about his epistemology, drive it to absurdity, and then on the other level, what he really does know but suppresses an unrighteousness. Don't answer him according to his folly, lest you be like unto him. Rather, use your presuppositions, which he too presupposes but suppresses in unrighteousness, to show how you can give an account of the necessity and the possibility and the nature of knowledge. Basically, that's what Dan Till says and we've come to the end of our time. And I had a fourth point, probably another half hour's worth, which I think I'm just going to put into tomorrow evening. It's important enough to get down here. Fourthly, I wanted to point out to you that a study of modern epistemology, ironically enough, does exactly what Dan Till says. He doesn't say it with his Dutch background and with his unique theological vocabulary, but says precisely what he's saying about the need for worldviews to be weighed, for the need for a transcendental method to avoid skepticism and a number of other things that I'd like to bring out tomorrow night. And when I do that tomorrow night I'm also going to be trying to show you what I think is the present distress in the foundations of logic and empiricism. It is a little bit disturbing to somebody who has made an effort, a good faith effort, to study modern epistemology to read evangelical apologetics, because over and over again you find claims such as that everyone knows the laws of logic, we can use those, or everybody lives by probability. That's as obvious as the nose on your face. And yet, if anything is obvious from my study of 20th century epistemology, except the foundations of logic are completely eroded, that nobody can answer Hume's challenge to inductivism, and that what you really are finding is the renunciation of foundationalism in favor of pragmatism in epistemology and the further endorsement of relativism as now a respectable philosophical option. And over against that epistemological anarchy. Epistemology is in terrible shape today. But I think we as Christians have an answer to that. And I'd like tomorrow night to briefly and in only a semi technical way. So don't let that scare you off, talk about some of those things. And I appreciate your attentiveness tonight. Thank you. This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and Ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our bonsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.