Dr Greg Bahnsen - Van Til's Presupp Apologetic: Biblical Considerations, Part 1 (Part 1)

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.

Doctor Van Till begins on the first page, in fact the very first sentence of his apologetic syllabus by defining the word apologetics. And he says, apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non Christian philosophy of life. My training has been primarily in linguistic analysis and so we could spend quite a while just with that one sentence. Let me spend a short while with it and point out a few things very important about that definition of apologetics. I'll read it again. Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non Christian philosophy of life. Now, notice three things in particular. Dr. Van Til says that the object of apologetics that that level of currency intellectually that we are using in apologetics is a philosophy of life. Dr. Van Til does not conceive of apologetics as defending the isolated claims of Christianity. For instance, that Jesus historically rose from the dead, which is the focal point of a lot of evangelical apologetics, or that there is in some sense a God, which is the focal point of Thomistic naturalistic apologetics. He says, rather, it is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life. It is the Christian worldview as a whole that is being defended in presuppositionalism. Secondly, notice about this definition that it emphasizes the antithesis between the Christian philosophy of life and the various forms plural of the singular non Christian philosophy of life. As Dr. Dantil conceives of the situation, there are many varieties of unbelief to be true, but they are only family differences. For the non Christian philosophy of life as a whole. There is an underlying commonality in all non Christian philosophy that stands antithetically over against the Christian philosophy of life. Dr. Bentell does not see the Christian worldview as on a continuum with other philosophies. So that if you, for instance, have a personal view of the universe but are not a Christian, well, first you've come partway toward being a Christian and perhaps you're closer to the gates of heaven. And if you have a personal view of the universe and a view of an almighty God, then you've taken another step toward the Christian philosophy of and then after we've got enough attitudes in there, then perhaps you finally get inside the gates of the kingdom. Now, as he sees that there is a stark antithesis, all non Christian philosophies of life stand under the equal condemnation of God. Because all non Christian philosophies of life, you see, are autonomous. When God requires us to bow our heart and mind to his revelation. Anything short of that, anything short of that, be it personalism, a general theism, Unitarianism, anything short of that is the non Christian philosophy of life. And then thirdly, you'll notice in his definition that he speaks of vindication, not mere defense. The apologist is not simply carrying off various individual challenges from non Christians and non Christian philosophers, but rather it is vindicated, positively proving the truth of the Christian philosophy of life. And notice also that it's vindicating and not simply pointing that very probably Christianity is true. In fact, one of the, I think, strangest criticism that has ever been made of Dr. Van Til is that he's a CDN. And we'll be talking about this later. But to preview that a bit, if you know anything about theism, historically or philosophically, epistemologically, fideism would say that there is no sense in which you can present a position, much less your religious position. As certainly true, fideism is at the exact opposite pole from epistemological certainty. And so those critics who have called Dr. Van Til a Phidias, ironically, are probably closer to fideism themselves than he is epistemologically. Because Dr. Van Til believes that you can show the certainty of the Christian faith, whereas John Warwick Montgomery and others believe you can only show it to be very probably true. Van Til is speaking of the vindication, the full vindication of the Christian worldview over again, antithetically, over, against all forms of the non Christian philosophy of life. But what are we doing in apologetics? Apologetics is defending the faith. You know that if nothing else from the title of Dr. Van Tilde's book, the Defense of the Faith, Apologetics is a simple situation, really. We run into it. I hope we run into it day by day. If we have contact with unbelievers, undoubtedly we run into it. I believe, and I tell my neighbor that I believe that the triune God created this world and that I am guilty before that God for my sins. I have a heart that's not right with God and not fit for heaven, and that God has taken care of that problem by his grace, by sending the second member of the Trinity into this world, the God man who not only died upon the cross as my substitute, but also rose from the dead and ascended on high and is coming again. And the only reason I believe these things is because by his grace, His Holy Spirit has changed my heart and made it fit for heaven. And day by day I hope to live in such a way as I become more and more like him and honor his revelation, so that on that final day he'll say to me, well done, good and faithful servant. My unbelieving neighbor listens to this and he says, do you believe all of that? Do you believe in a triune God? Isn't that a contradiction? Do you believe that he created the world? Haven't you heard of Darwin? Do you believe that he sent his son into this world? Don't you understand that that's been shown to be mythological? The very idea of an incarnation? You believe that the Holy Spirit has changed your heart. Isn't that just a bit mystical and irrational? You mean to say you live your life day by day under his authority and according to his law? Don't you believe in ethical maturity? I mean, that's what little children do. And that he's coming again. What kind of view of history is that? He says, I don't believe any of those things. Well, now we've got an apologetical situation, you see, because I make one type of claim and he makes a competing claim. Naturally enough, if we're going to talk at all, which I think is the Christian obligation, Christians can say, oh, you mean you don't see it that way? Well, I hope you have a nice life and a nice life hereafter, but I've got other things to do now. Hopefully I talk to my neighbor. I evangelize my neighbor, I pray for my neighbor. But as part of that evangelistic approach to my neighbor, I'm going to have to try to convince him of some things, namely that I am right and that he is wrong. By God's grace, I'm right, and by God's grace He can change his mind and he can go to heaven too. But to answer his objection and to vindicate my philosophy of life, I'm going to have to answer a question such as, how do I know? He will have to answer a question, how does he know? I make a claim? He makes a claim. They are competing claims. They can't be brought together. They can't be harmonized. And so we ask, well, how do we know who's right and who's wrong? How do we justify our truth claim? How can I prove what I say to be the case? How can he prove what he says to be the case? Consequently, apologetics. The issue in apologetics is going to revolve around a theory of knowledge. The ultimate question is not really the question whether he accepts or rejects any particular in my system. But ultimately, because of its instrumental value, the question is going to be, how does he know anything at all? How do I know anything at all? What is our theory of knowledge? What is mine? What is his? A theory of knowledge. That portion of philosophy that deals with theory of knowledge is called a systemology. And while many of the students here will have already known that, I know that we have others who are not students. And you'll forgive me, from time to time, I lapse into our technical jargon. I will often say epistemology, and every time you hear that, just translates. Theory of knowledge. Okay, so you'll know what we're talking about. In 1961, Bernard Graham wrote a book entitled Varieties of Christian Apologetics. He says, on page 13, the serious question in apologetics is the question of strategy. The serious question in apologetics is the question of strategy, that is the question of method. How do we go about defending the faith? What should our method be? What should our theory of knowledge be? How do we know? How do we justify our claims? Dr. Van Chill tells us about the same thing in a number of places in his writings. I can give you just a short sample of them. He says, for instance, in the Survey of Christian Epistemology, every man, educated or not, has an epistemology implied in his practice. Not everybody talks about a theory of knowledge, but everybody operates on the basis of a theory of knowledge. Or, as I like to tell my students back home, it's not a question whether we will do philosophy, it's a question of how well we will do philosophy. Everyone does it. Everyone has a theory of knowledge. Everyone operates on the basis of some theory of knowledge. This is what Dr. Van Till is saying as well. And he goes on to say, every system of philosophy must tell us whether it thinks true knowledge to be possible, or if a system of philosophy thinks it impossible, it must give good reasons for thinking so, because the very possibility of error presupposes the existence of truth. He says, no philosopher, not even a critic or a skeptic when it comes to Christianity, will be able to ignore the necessity of answering basic epistemological questions. In particular, how do you account for knowledge? What is the nature of knowledge? Why do you believe knowledge to be possible? What assumptions are there in the knowing transaction? How do we validate knowledge? Claims Van Till goes on to tell us in that same book that when one takes an epistemological view, he is really taking a view of the world. Whatever one takes as the proper test, origin or result of Knowledge will be internally dictated by his overall worldview or, if you will, by his general underlying presupposition, because one's conclusion and starting point require each other. And now I quote. Every system of thought necessarily has a certain method of its own, own one which corresponds to its idea of knowledge. Every system of thought, every outlook on life, whether it's existentialism or Buddhism or naturalism, whatever it may be, every system of thought has its own unique theory of knowledge, a theory of knowledge dictated by the nature of its view of the world and of man and how he comes to see the world. And that's why Dr. Benchill often says circularity is operative in every man's thinking, creating a fundamental philosophy of life which is contrary to any other system that has different presuppositions or, if you will, a different circle of thought. The most basic doctrines of a system are interdependent and will color each other, thus giving a distinctive method to each system and in turn, showing us that neutrality will be impossible. When somebody says, well, I'm going to neutrally look at all these epistemological theories and decide which one is best, the natural question is, and how will you tell which one is best? He says, well, I'll tell, because I'm going to look at what theory gives me the most truth. At the end of the application of the method, let's pretend that I have a number of inventions for sorting oranges. And three people come in to me and they show me their inventions for sorting oranges. Well, now, how am I going to choose which one is the best? Well, I'm probably going to apply a number of oranges to each one, and at the end I'm going to see which comes out with the most good oranges. The difficulty you see in doing that is that to test the orange torture, I must already know what the good oranges look like. You see, if I'm a native from some island who's never seen an orange and I have to test the orange torches, I'll have no idea which one's the best because I won't have any idea which oranges are supposed to be chosen. So when someone says, I'm going to choose an epistemological method based on which one gives me the most truth, then what's he telling you? I already know what the truths are. And so he has to have some view of the world and of man. He must know some things before he goes about choosing a theory by which he can justify what he so man till is right, not Just because I happen to like his apologetical system, do I like that and say that. But in the nature of the case, if you know the nature of epistemology, circularity is unavoidable. Now, there's a way to deal with some of the problems that you may be thinking of, and we'll come to that in just a few moments. But anyway, I think he's right when he says everyone has a worldview, every worldview has a distinctive methodology, and everybody must reason in terms of his worldview and methodology, and thus creating something of a circle. Neutrality is impossible because every thinker will, in the nature of the case, begin with a certain bias. However, unlike a number of other philosophers in this century who have come to recognize that truth, and there have been numerous philosophers who have agreed with Van Till on that point, Van Till has refused to capitulate to relativism. He says, we cannot choose, and I'm quoting, we cannot choose epistemologies as we choose hats. Such would be the case if it had been once for all established that the whole thing is but a matter of taste. That is exactly the point in dispute. Does that sound like a fetus to you? Evangelist says, no, you don't choose epistemologies because one happens to suit your taste. You don't arbitrarily choose something that important. On the very same page, he notes that the attitude which allows for epistemological relativity rests on the conviction that man can have no knowledge of ultimate things. However, that very conviction, he says, must be made reasonable, which, due to its very content, the idea that man cannot know anything ultimately cannot be made reasonable in the sense of offering a reason for why we know it. Ultimately, this is going to be impossible to do that. When two systems which have fundamentally antithetic presuppositions come into conflict, says Van Till, the opponents can, and now listen and must reason with each other. The worldview which is contrary to your own and I quote, ought to be refuted by a reasoned argument instead of by ridicule and assumption. That is so important. I want to read it again. Any of you who are taking notes, this is a good point. To get it word for word, I'm quoting from the Survey of Christian epistemology at page 23. Mantill says, when two systems which have fundamentally antithetic presuppositions come into conflict, opponents can and must reason with each other, and the worldview which is contrary to your own quote ought to be refuted by a reasoned argument instead of by ridicule and a thumbnail Presuppositionalists do not say we are right because we assume we are right, or we are right because you people are going to hell. And we can ridicule you for the vanity of your thought. Although that is often the way presuppositionalism is portrayed. It's a terrible and false caricature. Van Til says you must reason with your opponent. You must vindicate the Christian philosophy of life. He says the two opponents must seek to determine which presuppositions are necessary for the intelligibility of the objects of knowledge, the intelligibility of facts, the intelligibility of laws, the interpretation of experience, the foundations of logic, the task of predication, the consciousness of self, the consciousness of objects, the consciousness of time. And I just got tired of quoting at that point. I mean, there's just so much in the corpus of Van Till. Over and over again, he says, challenge the unbeliever to make intelligible his view that show that it's intelligible, that on and on and on, any number of things. Put it very briefly, Van Til asked the question, what are the necessary preconditions of knowledge? When it comes to choosing an epistemology, we must argue about the preconditions of knowledge. And so the fundamental question of epistemology turns out to be this. Can reality be intelligibly interpreted and exclusively eminent or temporal category? A pivotal question is this. Which mind, man or God is to be taken as original and epistemologically ultimate? And now I quote again from the Survey of Christian Epistemology at page four. There can be no more fundamental question in epistemology than the question whether or not facts can be known without reference to God, whether or not God exists. No more fundamental question in epistemology than the question whether or not facts can be known without reference to God. And so Van Till says, when it comes to the epistemological method that's crucial to apologetics, that every man has an implicit epistemology. Every system must justify the possibility of knowledge. And every system has its own method, its own epistemology based on its unique worldview. And yet we cannot choose our epistemology arbitrarily. Contrary worldviews must be refuted by reasoned argumentation. And the fundamental epistemological question must then be, can there be any knowledge without God? In the defense of the faith, Dr. Van Til says that in the final analysis, we must choose between two epistemology. It would appear, then, that the theory of being that we have presented fits in with the notion of the Bible as an authoritative revelation of God, such a being as the Bible speaks of could not speak otherwise than with absolute authority. In the last analysis, we shall have to choose between two theories of knowledge. According to one theory, God is the final court of appeal. According to the other theory, man is the final court of appeal. That was page 51 and then later on in page 309 similar words. According to the Christian story, logic and reality meet first of all in the mind and being of God. God's being is exhaustively rational. Then God creates and rules the universe according to his plan. Even the evil of this world happens according to this plan plan. The only substitute for this Christian scheme of things is to assert or assume that logic and reality meet originally in the mind of man. The final point of reference in all predication must ultimately rest in some mind, divine or human. It is either the self contained God of Christianity or the would be autonomous man that must be and is presupposed as the final reference point in every sentence that any man utters. So epistemology is the issue in apologetics. And to simplify the matter, Dr. Van Scholl says, when all said and done, there's only two epistemologies. The one that says everything makes reference to the mind of God originally and by means of a standard. And the other that logic and reality experience meet first of all in the mind of man and man's mind is the Standard. According to Dr. Van Til, Christianity, just like any other worldview, will have a distinctive epistemology of its own. But it is just as important to have a Christian theory of knowledge as it is to have a Christian theory of being a Christian metaphysic, one cannot well have the one without at the same time also having the other. Modern thought is largely preoccupied with the theory of knowledge. As Christians, we shall therefore find it necessary to set the Christian theory of knowledge over against the modern form of the non Christian theory of knowledge. Even so, we shall have to make it plain that our theory of knowledge is what it is, because our theory of being our metaphysic is what it is. As Christians, we cannot begin speculating about knowledge by itself. We cannot ask how we know without at the same time asking what we know. And the issue when you look at the distinctive Christian epistemology, the issue over against the distinctive non Christian epistemology is by what final authority are we to judge? At the same time, speaking of Adam and Eve, at the same time, Eve also gave a definite answer to the question how do we know she said, we know independently of God. She said that God's authority was to be tested by herself. Thus she came to take the place of ultimate authority. She was no doubt going to test God's authority by experience and reflection upon experience. Yet it would be she herself who would be the final authority. So our first point then is that epistemological method is crucial to apologetics. That's where the debate finally rest epistemology. Now, the second thing I'd like to do this evening is talk about Dr. Van Till's attempt to develop an epistemology that is suitable for the Christian world and life view. Dr. Van Til says over and over again in the Defense of the Faith in his many writings that his aim is to follow a biblical method. And many of his critics have said, for someone who says so much about following a biblical method, why is there not more extra Jesus in Van Til's writing? Van Til's answer has been, well, because my colleagues have done that exegesis. And if you need that, that's where you can go to find it. Perhaps it still would have been good for Dr. Van Til to do more of it. The interesting thing is, for those who read his writings more than once and read more than one of his writings, his writings are just laced with exegetical conclusions and the language of the Scripture appears over and over again. But my point is that his aim is to follow a biblical method, and more particularly a Reformed method, because he sees that the Reformed faith just is what the Bible teaches. So now I'd like to talk about the need for a biblical epistemological method. Just a couple of quotes from Van Til to move on. Roman numeral 7, the original edition of the Defense of the Faith, he writes about the primary purpose of his book, and I think it's fair to say it's the primary purpose of all of his writings. Its primary purpose is to set forth in broad outline a method of defending Christianity which is consistent with the nature of Christianity. On page 19 of the same book, I shall attempt to show that my structure of thought is the exact opposite of what my critics think it to be and that it is controlled by the idea of the Bible as the infallible word of God and by the system of doctrines contained in the Bible. And then later, Dr. Van Till makes it very clear what he understands that system of doctrine contained in the Bible. As Reformed Christians, we wish to show men that it is Reformed theology, not Romanism, nor even some lower form of Evangelical Protestantism that they need. On page 327 and then I'll stop reading for a while. The one main question to which we are addressing ourselves in this series of articles is whether Christians holding to the Reformed faith should also hold to a specifically Reformed method when they are engaged in the defense of the faith. Dr. Van Till understands, I think rightly, some would say wrongly. But rightly or wrongly, he understands that his system of thought is based on the Bible, that his method is specifically true to the Reformed faith as a summary and adequate and accurate summary of the Christian faith. I'd like to spend a little bit of time here in our next half hour talking about the Biblical method of doing apologetics and the Biblical theory of knowledge in particular. To do that, we're going to be looking in a moment or two at Acts 17, which is perhaps the clearest historical presentation of the Christian apologetic over against non Christian philosophy that we find in the New Testament. But before we look at the Areopagus address of Paul, who's addressed through the Areopagus Council, I want to point out in a topical fashion what I think is a summary of the New Testament view of the theory of knowledge and apologetics. Paul understood. This is my first point here. In this topical summary, Paul understood that the unbeliever's mindset and philosophy would be systematically contrary to that of the believer. To put it in another way, that the two represent in principle a clash of total attitude and basic presupposition. If you want a place to go in the Bible to find that, I would suggest Ephesians 4, 17, 24. There Paul taught that the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding. Why? Because of the ignorant and hardened hearts which are within them. And in the same passage he says a completely different epistemic condition characterizes the Christian who has been, and I quote, renewed in the spirit of your mind and has learned Christ. For the truth is in Jesus. In First Corinthians, chapter 1, verses 17 to 25, and in First Corinthians 3, 18, 20, Paul tells us that the wisdom of the world evaluates God's wisdom as foolishness, while the believer understands that worldly wisdom has been made foolish by God. And so the basic commitments of the believer and the unbeliever are fundamentally opposed to each other. I think that's adequately shown in these passages. Secondly, Paul further understood that the basic commitments of the unbeliever produce only ignorance and foolishness, allowing an effective internal critique of his hostile worldview. The ignorance of the non Christian's presuppositions needed to be exposed. And thus Paul refers to thought which opposes the faith. This is the way he describes it. Now this is Paul suaviter in motto. You know, Paul being his kindliest. What he says is that any thought which opposes the faith is vain babblings of knowledge falsely so called. First Timothy 6:20. He insists that the wise disputers of this age have been made foolish and put to shame by those who have been called foolish. First Corinthians 1, verses 20 and 27. In Romans 1, unbelievers become vain in their reasoning, futile in their reasoning. Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools. So our second point is that the presuppositions of the unbeliever can produce only ignorance and foolishness according to Paul's teaching. Now if this sounds too strong to you, I would remind you that we're not reading Van Till as yet we're reading Paul. These are Paul's words. How does Paul come to this opinion? What does he do with it, having possibly reason on Mars Till, this is what he thinks. Thirdly, Paul, by contrast, says that the Christian takes revelational authority as his starting point and the controlling factor in all reasoning. In Colossians 2, 3, Paul says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ, in which case we must be on the alert against philosophy in verse 8, which is not after Christ, lest it rob us of our epistemic treasure, lest we be robbed of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The Old Testament proverb had put it this the fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Accordingly, if the apologist is going to cast down reasonings in every high thing exalted against the knowledge of God, he must first bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 2 Corinthians 10:5. He must, as Colossians 1:18 says, make Christ preeminent in all things, even his epistemic method. Upon the platform of God's revealed truth, the believer can authoritatively declare the riches of knowledge unto unbelievers. Fourthly, in my topical summary, we see in Paul's writings it established that because all men have a clear knowledge of God from general revelation, the unbeliever's suppression of the truth results in culpable ignorance. While his philosophy may drive him to foolishness and ignorance, it's culpable because he knows better. It's a knowledgeable ignorance, if you will. Men have a natural and inescapable knowledge of God, for God has made it manifest unto them, making his divine nature perceived through the created order, so that all men are, as Paul says in Romans 1, without excuse, etymologically without an apologetic, they have no defense for what they are saying and doing. This knowledge, however, is suppressed by means of unrighteousness which places men under the wrath of God. Because Paul says, knowing God, they glorified him not as God. The ignorance which characterizes unbelieving thought is something for which the unbeliever is morally responsible. Fifth, given these preceding conditions, the appropriate thing for the apologist to be do is to set his worldview with its scriptural presuppositions and authority in antithetical contrast to the worldview of the unbeliever, explaining that in principle the unbeliever destroys the possibility of knowledge. That is, we must do an internal critique of the system to demonstrate its foolishness and ignorance and then indicate how the biblical perspective alone accounts for the knowledge which the unbeliever sinful use it. By placing the two perspectives in contrast and showing the impossibility of the contrary to the Christian outlook, the apologist seeks to expose the unbelievers suppression of his knowledge of God and by means of that to call him to repentance to a change of mind or mindset, a change of conviction and lifestyle. Reasoning in this presuppositional manner, refusing to become intellectually neutral or to argue on the unbelievers eponymous grounds, prevents having our minds corrupted from the simplicity and purity that is toward Christ and counteracts the beguiling philosophy used by the serpent to ensnare Eve. That's what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:3. By the way, we need to watch out for that beguilement that Eve fell subject to. In the face of the fool's challenges to the Christian faith, Paul would have believers meekly correct those who are opposing themselves, he says in 2 Timothy 2:25, setting biblical instruction over against the self vitiating perspective of unbelief and showing the need for repentance unto the knowledge of the truth. Okay, so there is much more that could be said. In fact, I've written a whole syllabus on biblical approach to knowledge and to defending the faith. But here in topical fashion, I just summarize what Paul has said about these matters. Now with that background I think we can go to the Areopagus address and understand what Paul was doing there. And by looking at a biblical exemplar of the interaction of Jerusalem with Athens, you get a good idea of what the biblical method for defending the faith ought to be, and much more could be said about that tonight than I'm going to say. I trust you already realize that from the shortness of this last summary. But I do want to look at some, in some detail at the Areopagus address, not only because it's a bone of contention between presuppositionalists and evidentialists when it comes to apologetics, but also because I think, as the Word of God, it's a lot more profitable than anything else that I have to offer to you from my own thinking. It must first be noted that Paul's manner of addressing his audience was respectful and gentle when he addressed the Areopagus. The boldness of his apologetic did not become arrogant. And I do believe it's true that many of us who have been good Vantilians have not learned Dr. Van Till's method that way. There has been far too much arrogance in it. Paul was not arrogant when he defended the faith. He stood in the midst of the council, which would have been the customary attitude of an orator, and began his address formally with a polite manner of expression. You men of Athens. In the Magna Carta of Christian apologetics, 1 Peter 3, 15, Peter reminds us that even when we offer a reasoned defense of the hope within us, we must do so with meekness and with respect. Ridicule and anger and sarcasm, name calling are inappropriate weapons of apologetical defense. A spirit filled apologist will evidence the fruits of the Spirit and his approach to others. So notice that Paul was gentle and respectful. Secondly, notice that his approach was in terms of a basic philosophical perspective. The Athenians had specifically asked about the resurrection was at the point that he mentioned Jesus in the Resurrection. They say, now wait a minute, we better have you come before the council and talk about these things. But we have no hint that Paul replied by examining various alternative theories. You don't see Paul and Mars still saying, well now maybe Jesus swooned on the cross, but of course that won't work for the following reasons, or maybe the disciples stole the body, but that won't work for these reasons. No, Paul didn't do that sort of thing in order to conclude, very probably Jesus rose from the dead. No, nothing of the sort appears. Instead, Paul laid the presuppositional groundwork for accepting the authoritative word from God, which was the source and the conscience. Context of the Good News about Christ's resurrection Dr. Van Till says it takes the fact of the Resurrection to see its proper framework, and it takes the framework to see the fact of the resurrection. The two are accepted on the authority of Scripture alone and by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Without the proper theological context, the resurrection would simply be a monstrosity, a freak of nature, absurd resuscitation of a course. Van Hill's not just playing with philosophical possibilities. Physics professor at UCLA has been saying for years, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I also believe that there's a natural explanation for that if we just learn a lot more about the circumstances. You see, it's just one of those things. As Van Till humorously says, she sends Ripley's believe it or not, strange things happen. A corpse resuscitated. That isn't the Christian proclamation, is it? Given the monism and the determinism and the materialism and the philosophy of history being entertained by the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers in Athens, they could find intellectually sufficient ground, if they wish to do so, for disputing even the fact of the resurrection. It would have been futile for Paul to argue about the facts without challenging the unbelievers philosophy of facts. In verses 24 to 31 of Acts 17, we get Paul's recognition that between himself and his hearers, two complete systems of thought were in conflict. Any alleged fact, any particular evidence which was introduced into that discussion would have been various. Seen in the light of the differing systems of thought and consequently the apostles apologetics had to be suited to a philosophical critique of the unbeliever's perspective and a philosophical defense of the believer's position. For all the evidence that can be marshaled from the New Testament that the apostles declared the resurrection of Jesus Christ, they did not declare an evidential apologetic. Paul apologetic on Mars Hill was philosophical in nature. He was called upon to conduct his apologetic with respect to worldviews that he saw to be in collision. The Athenians had to be challenged not simply to add a bit of information about a historical event to their previous thinking, but to renounce their previous thoughts and undergo a thorough change of mind. They needed to be converted in their total outlook on life, on man, on the world and on God. And that's why Paul reasoned with them in a presuppositional fashion. As Paul began his areopagus apologetic, he began by drawing attention to the nature of man as an inherently religious being. That in verse 22, the term that he uses to describe the Athenians there literally fearers of the supernatural spirit is sometimes translated very religious, sometimes translated somewhat superstitious. There's really no satisfactory English equivalent that I can find Anyway, very religious is too complimentary. Paul was not prone to flattery, by the way, and according to Lucian, it was forbidden to use compliments before the Areopagus in an effort to gain its goodwill. So I doubt that he meant it in that way. Somewhat superstitious is perhaps a bit too critical in its thrust. Although the term could sometimes be used among pagans as a compliment, it usually denoted an excess of strange piety. And that's why in Acts 25:19, Festus refers to Judaism using this term as a mild reproach of its religiosity. It is not beyond possibility that Paul cleverly chose this term, I think, precisely for the sake of its ambiguity. His readers would wonder whether the good or bad sense was being stressed by Paul. And Paul would be striking a double blow. Men cannot eradicate a religious impulse within themselves, as the Athenians demonstrate, and yet this good impulse has been degraded by rebellion against the living and true God, as the Athenians also demonstrate. Although men do not acknowledge it, they are aware of their relation and accountability to the living and true God who created them. But rather than come to terms with this God and his wrath against their sin, they rather pervert the truth. And in this they become ignorant and foolish. And thus Paul could present his point by making an illustration of an altar dedicated to an unknown God. Paul testified that as he observed the Athenian objects of worship, he found an altar with an appropriate inscription. The verb used of Paul's activity does not connote a mere looking at things, by the way, but a systematic inspection, a purposeful scrutiny. Scrutiny. The English word theorize is cognate to it, he says. As I looked, as I was looking for the appropriate thing to say, I found the altar that said to an unknown God. Among their objects of religious devotion, Paul finally found one that contained a text for what he had to say. As FF Bruce says, building upon the admission of the Athenians themselves, Paul could easily indict them for the ignorance of their worship, that is, any worship that he sees as contrary to God's word. The Athenians had brought Paul before the Areopagus with a desire to know what they were missing in religious philosophy. And Paul immediately points out that heretofore their worship was admittedly of the unknown. Paul did not attempt to supplement or build upon a common foundation of natural theology with the Greek philosophers. He began rather with their own expression of inadequacy, with their own expression of defectiveness. He underscored their ignorance and proceeded from that significant epistemological point. And he was striking the Appropriate blow, he says. I've been brought here to tell you so that you might know the things that I'm preaching. And that's appropriate, since you confess you are ignorant. The presence of altars to unknown gods in Athens is attested by writers such as Pausanias and Philostratus. According to Diogenes Laertius, such altars were erected to an anonymous source of blessing. For instance, once, probably around 550 years before Christ, when a plague afflicted Athens without warning and could not be mitigated by sacrifice or the medicine of the day, Epimenides counseled the Athenians to set white and black sheep loose on the Areopagus and then to erect altars wherever the sheep came to rest. Not knowing the specific source of the plague's elimination, the Athenians built various altars to unknown gods. And this sort of thing was apparently common in the ancient world. In fact, in 1910, an excavation at Pergamum unearthed evidence that a torchbearer who felt under some obligation to gods whose names were unknown to him, expressed his gratitude by erecting an anonymous altar for them. And so I think Deismann's conclusion is worth repeating. He says, in Greek antiquity, cases were not altogether rare in which anonymous altars to unknown gods, or to the God whom it may concern, were erected. When people were convinced, for example, after experiencing some deliverance, that a deity had been gracious to them, but were not certain of the deity's name. The Athenians had a number of such altars. This was testimony to the Athenian conviction that they were lorded over by mysterious and unknown for forces. And yet these altars were also evidence that they assumed that they knew enough about these forces to worship them and worship them in the particular manner in which they did. There was thus an element of subtle and internal critique in Paul's mention of the Athenian worship of that which they acknowledged is unknown. You know enough to worship this way, to worship that which you say you don't know anything about. Moreover, Paul was noting the basic schizophrenia, an unbelieving thought, when he described in the Athenians both an awareness of God in verse 22 and an ignorance of God in verse 23. That's exactly what he says in Romans 1, isn't it? As Berkower notes, there is full agreement between Paul's characterization of heathendom as ignorance of God and his speech on the Areopagus. Ever with Paul, the call to faith is a matter of radical conversion from. From ignorance of God, knowing God the unregenerate, nevertheless, suppress the Truth and follow a lie and gain a darkened mind. And so, commenting on this passage in Acts 17, Monk says, what follows reveals that God was unknown only because the Athenians had not wanted to know him. So Paul was not introducing foreign gods, but God, who was both known as this altar shows and yet unknown. The unbeliever is fully responsible for his mental state. That's a state of culpable ignorance. And that's why Paul issued a call to repentance. Their ignorant mindset, he said, was immoral. So Paul stresses the ignorance of the unbeliever. Notice in the Areopagus address secondly, that the authority of revelational knowledge is set forth. Having alluded to an unknown God, Paul said, that which you worship, acknowledging openly your ignorance, I proclaim unto you. There's two crucial elements of his apologetic approach to be discerned in that Paul started with an emphasis upon his hearers ignorance and from there went on to declare with authority the truth of God. Their ignorance was made to stand over against his unique authority and ability to expound the truth. Paul set forth Christianity as alone reasonable and true. And his ultimate starting point was the authority of Christ's revelation. Of course, it's not uncommon in Paul's writings to stress the Gentiles are ignorant, knowing not God. 1 Corinthians 1, Galatians 4, Ephesians 4, 1 Thessalonians 4, 2 Thessalonians 1. It's all over his writing. In diametric contrast to them, the unbelievers, the Gentiles. In diametric contrast to them is the believer who possesses a knowledge of God according to galatians and ephesians 4. This antithesis is fundamental to Paul's thought. To put it very simply, you are ignorant and we know what we're talking about. Not the attitude of modern humble skepticism. The Greek word for proclaim, when Paul says, I proclaim to you, I set forth to you, refers to a solemn declaration which is made with authority. For instance, in the Greek papyri, it's used for an announcement of the appointment of one's legal representative. It might seem that such an authoritative declaration by Paul would be appropriate only when he dealt with Jews who already accepted the Scriptures. However, whether dealing with Jews or with secular philosophers, Paul's epistemological platform was the same, so that even in Athens he proclaimed the word of God. The verb is frequently used in the Book of Acts and in the Pauline epistles, by the way, for the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel, which has as divine, direct divine authority. And so we see that Paul, although he had been ridiculed as a philosophical charlatan, it was interesting. They say, these are the philosophers sitting around saying, what will this seed picker say to us in A Matter of man? As a scavenger of intellectual tidbits. Although Paul had been ridiculed as a philosophical charlatan, he presumed unique authority to provide the Athenian philosophers with that knowledge which they lacked about God. That was far from stressing common ideas and beliefs. Then isn't it? How offensive that antithesis must have been to the philosophers of Athens. We are talking about the number one university in all the world. As Dr. Van Till says, they were sure that such a God as Paul preached did not and could not exist. They were therefore sure that Paul could not declare this God to them. No one could know such a God as Paul believed in. Paul stresses on the Areopagus the culpable suppression of the truth as well. This is the third point Paul reasoned on the basis of antithetical presuppositions, a different starting point and authority. And he stresses the culpability of his hearers for that ignorance which resulted from their unbelief. Natural revelation certainly played a part in his convicting them of this truth. However, there's no hint in Paul's words that this revelation had been handled properly or that it established a common interpretation between the believer and the unbeliever. Rather, Paul's references to natural revelation were made for the very purpose of indicting the espoused beliefs of his audience. His allusion to their religious nature has already been discussed. But now notice in verses 26 and 27 how we're shown that Paul taught that God's providential government of history was calculated to bring men to him. They should have known him from his works. Now Paul's appeal to Providence is conspicuous at Lystra as well. In Acts 14 the goodness of God should lead men to repentance. Acts 17:27 indicates that God's providential government of history should be bring them to seek God, if perhaps they might feel after Him. The subordinate clause here expresses an unlikely contingency. The natural man seeking and finding God cannot be taken for granted. In Romans 3, Paul cites the 14th Psalm. There is none that cease after God. They have all turned aside and together become unprofitable. So in Acts 17 it's an unlikely possibility that they will seek after him. Even if the unregenerate should attempt to find God, he would at best feel after Him. Interesting. That verb is used also in Homer for groping about when the Cyclops was blinded feeling after. In that blinded way, Plato used the word for amateur guesses at the truth. Far from showing what Lightfoot thought was a clear appreciation of the elements of truth contained in their philosophy at Athens, Paul taught that the eyes of the unbeliever had been blinded to the light of God's revelation. Pagans do not interpret natural revelation correctly, coming to the light of the truth here and there. They rather grope about in darkness, he says, feeling after the truth. Hence Paul viewed man as blameworthy for not holding fast to the knowledge of God which came to him in creation and providence. The rebellious are left without an excuse because of God's general revelation. So in Acts 17, as in Romans 1, Paul teaches that unbelievers have a knowledge of God which they suppress and that merits their condemnation. The antithesis looms large in every encounter with heathendom. It is directed, however, against the maligning that heathendom does to the revealed truth of God in nature, and it calls for conversion to the revelation of God in Christ. So it is that Paul's appeals to general revelation function to point out the guilt of the unbeliever as he mishandles the truth of God. He is responsible because he possesses the truth he is guilty because of what he does to the truth. Both aspects of the unbeliever's relation to natural revelation must be kept in mind. In Acts 17:27, heathen philosophers are said at best to grope in darkness after God. This inept groping is not due to any deficiency in God or his revelation. The philosophers grope, says Paul, even though God is not far from each one of us. Notice that verse 28 begins with the word for offering a clarification or illustration of the statement that God is quite near at hand even for blind and pain pagan thinkers. The unbelievers failure to find God and his acknowledged ignorance is not an innocent matter. And how does Paul demonstrate that point versus even your own poets have said. The strange idea that these quotations stand as proof in the same way as biblical quotations in the other speeches of Acts, which is what Ancient says in his commentary in Acts, is not only contrary to Paul's decided emphasis in his theology upon the unique authority authority of God's word, but it simply won't comport with the context of the Areopagus address, wherein the groping unrepentant ignorance of pagan religiosity is declared forthrightly. Paul quotes the pagan writers to manifest their guilt, since God is near at hand to all men, since his revelation impinges on them continually, they can't escape a knowledge of their Creator and Sustainer. They're without excuse for their perversion of the truth. So Paul makes the point that even pagans, contrary to their spiritual disposition, possess a knowledge of God, which those oppressed renders them guilty before the Lord. Paul supports that point before the Areopagus by showing that even pantheistic Stoics are aware of and obliquely express God's nearness and man's dependence on Him. Epimenides the Cretan is quoted from a quatrain in an address to Zeus, in him we live and move, and have our being by the way. In Titus 1:12, Paul cites another portion of that very same quatrain. The phrase in him would have denoted in idiomatic Greek of the first century, especially in Jewish circles, in his power or by him. This declaration by him we live is not at all parallel to Paul's theology of the believer's mystical union with Christ, which is often expressed in terms of our being in Christ. Rather, in Acts 17, Acts 17 is closer to the teaching of Colossians 1, in him were all things created, and in him all things consist. The stress falls as Gartner says in his long dissertation on the areopagic Address, the stress falls on man's absolute dependence on God for his existence. Even though the original writing which Paul quoted had aimed to prove that Zeus was not dead. And the way that was going to be proved that Zeus was not dead is by showing that men live, the order of which God is fully reversed. In Paul's thinking. He says men live because God lives. The Greek poet was arguing, God lives because men live. If you do any exegesis of the two pieces of literature, and it's amazing, Paul clearly turns it around. Paul's second quotation is introduced with the words as certain of your own poets have said. His use of the plural is further evidence of his educated familiarity with Greek thought, by the way, for as a matter of fact, the statement which he quotes can be found in more than one Greek writer. Paul quotes his fellow Cilician Aretas as saying, for we are also his offspring, which comes from the poem Natural Phenomena. Also echoed, by the way, in Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus, Paul could agree to the formal statement that we are God's offspring. However, he would certainly have said by way of qualification what the Stoics did not say, namely, that we are children of God merely in a natural sense, not in a supernatural sense. And even at that we are quite naturally, children of wrath. Yes, we can be called the offspring of God, but certainly not in the intended pantheistic sense of Aretas or Cleanthesio. Knowing the historical and philosophical context in which Paul spoke, and noting the polemical thrust of the Areopagus address, we cannot accept any interpreter's hasty pronouncement to the effect that Paul cites these teachings with approval, unqualified by allusion to a totally different frame of reference, which is what Gordon Lewis says in his discussion of this those who make such remarks eventually are forced to acknowledge the qualification Anyway, you have these people who write on Acts 17, Paul didn't draw any qualifications. And then the writer goes on to say, oh, by the way, he would have qualified by saying Lewis says Paul is not commending their Stoic doctrine. Well, if he quotes it without qualification, he certainly is commending their Stoic doctrine. And Lewis says he did not reduce his categories to theirs. But if his categories were not the same, he wasn't saying the same thing, was he? You can deny that Paul had those qualifications, but you're going to reintroduce them unless you think Paul became a Stoic.

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 website bonseninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.