Every worldview makes truth-claims and must subject itself
to scrutiny around those claims. Every worldview unavoidably operates on presuppositions
that function as first principles. Some claim that first principles must be
universally obvious to all. First principles are do not require proof because
they are in fact first principles. The problem with this claim is that it
cannot be demonstrated to be true, nor is it obvious to all. It is not
self-evident that first principles must be universally self-evident. For all
its usefulness, logic indeed has its limitations. The limitations of logic
should not deter us from agreeing that every worldview has a starting point
upon which it operates. It is the place where it begins to move the process of
human reason forward. The contents of this blog are derived mostly from Van
Til’s book, “The Defense of the Faith,” chapter twelve, “The Defense of Christianity.”
1.
Both the Christian and the non-Christian
worldview make presuppositions about the nature of reality. Van Til writes, The
Christian presupposes the self-contained God and his plan for the universe.[1]
On
the other hand, the non-Christian worldview presupposes a world of chance. The
Christian, knowing that the universe is the result of the creative activity of
the self-contained God of Scripture interprets reality through the lens of the
divine revelation of Scripture.
2.
The Christian understands that he cannot, simply
by means of logic, legislate what reality should be says Van Til. The
non-Christian takes a different approach. Out of one side of his mouth the
non-Christian says that the universe is the product of chance, and hence, is
not rationally constituted. But out of the other side of his mouth, he seeks to
control and interpret the facts of reality by his use of reason, which must
mean he believes the universe is, after all, rationally constituted.
3.
Both the Christian and the non-Christian claim
that their respective positions are in accord with the “facts of experience.”
However, the Christian understands the facts of experience to be what God has
revealed them to be in Scripture. As Van Til puts it, he understands that the
uniformity of nature is what it is because it is included in the plan of God.
The non-Christian, to the contrary understands facts to have a nature different
from any other fact. Here we see the presupposition of ultimate irrationality
in the sense that the universe is the product of chance and chaos. Order and
uniformity are simply said to be appearances at best and that, after the mind
has made its contribution.
4.
Both Christian theism and the non-Christian
worldview claim that their respective position is in accord with the demands of
logic. The Christian claims this because he understands that every created fact
is a fact created by the self-contained, rational God of scripture. The
Christian story of Scripture echoes this truth from Genesis to Revelation. The
non-Christian, on the other hand, also makes his claim to logic, but has no
valid reason for doing so. His presupposition about the ultimate
non-rationality of reality provides no ground for the rationality necessary to
understand the true nature of the facts of reality.
Modern Christianity has run into numerous problems in its
effort to defend the many truth claims of the system of Christianity for a
variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that attempts are made
to do so in piece-meal fashion. Additionally, many apologists subscribe to
contradictory theological positions that are easily spotted by opponents of
Christian dogma. Rather than focus on those reasons, I want to turn your
attention to the devastating consequences of traditional or classical apologetics
as it is the most popular approach for dealing with these objections to
Christian truth. Once again, my focus remains on the same chapter in Van Til’s
great work on “The Defense of The Faith.”
Van Til saliently lists a number of compromises in traditional
apologetics:
1.
The traditional method compromises the Biblical
doctrine of God in not clearly distinguishing his self-existence from his
relation to the world. [2] The
traditional method pretends that the non-Christian is okay to think of facts
existing apart from God and as not being a created.
2.
The traditional method compromises the Biblical
doctrine of God and his relation to his revelation to man by not clearly
insisting that man must not seek to determine the nature of God, otherwise than
from his revelation.[3]
Natural theology assumes that man is capable of understanding the facts of the
natural world apart from dependence on God. Hence, knowledge is not
revelational in nature.
3.
The traditional method compromises the Biblical
doctrine of the counsel of God by not taking it as the only all-inclusive
ultimate cause of whatsoever comes to pass.[4]
The attempt to mix human freedom with divine sovereignty has had devastating
results not only for theology but for apologetics. The traditional approach
fails to provide for a truly defensible position on the problem of evil. In
that scheme, God has done what God cannot do, ceased to be the ultimate cause
of all that occurs. The theory of middle knowledge is just one among several
views that are simply not consistent with what Scripture reveals about God’s
self-sufficient, absolute, and self-contained determiner of all that was, is,
or ever shall be.
4.
The traditional method therefore compromises the
clarity of God’s revelation to man, whether this revelation comes through
general or through special revelation.[5]
Facts can be understood as not testifying directly to the revelation of God in
nature. They can be understood apart from “facts as being created.”
5.
The traditional method compromises the necessity
of supernatural revelation in relation to natural revelation.[6]
According to the tradition method, supernatural revelation provides for what
was lacking from the beginning. Natural man was supposedly able to interpret
natural revelation apart from supernatural revelation. But this is simply not
the case. Supernatural revelation has augmented natural revelation from the
very beginning.
6.
The traditional method compromises the authority
of Scripture by not taking it as self-attesting in the full sense of the term.[7] This
is the most damning, in my opinion, of all the criticism Van Til offers on the
traditional method. The traditional method has no objection to subjecting
Scripture to the scrutiny of non-Christian standards. The unbeliever is led to
believe that he can sit in judgment of the credibility of the divine
revelation, the very word of God itself. In so doing, finite, autonomous man
sits is actually permitted to be the final arbiter of what can and cannot be
accept as it relates to the claims of Christian theism. We have to build a
bridge, the traditionalist says. We have to do the pre-work, they claim. What
are the results of that pre-work?
In the end, when we compromise in this way, we end up
destroying a number of basic Christian doctrines through compromise and in the
name of biblical scholarship and supposedly reasonable apologetics. We end up
with a watered-down, even fictional creation account. Adam and Eve are no longer historical figures but actors in a parable. There could never be a snake
that actually spoke. The earth was not in fact created in six days. The idea of
a global flood is simply dismissed. The entire book of Jonah is an
embarrassment to Christianity. Jesus was a loving, caring, socialist who came
to give us an example of how we should think and live: nothing more. The
doctrine of the atonement as historically understood is described as cosmic
child abuse.
The God of the Old Testament is nothing more than the
projection of ancient Hebrews doing the best they could and even that was not
very good. Jesus sat the record straight. The Bible is like any other book and
can be judged and criticized the same as this blog. The exclusive claims of
Christianity are narrow-minded and bigoted. Traditional Christians have been
wrong for 2,000 years. They are nothing more than a bunch of hypercritical,
closed minded haters. The notion of a literal hell is simply incongruent with
the loving God that Jesus talked about. Sex is okay within any context so long
as it involves loving feelings between the parties involved. To be sure, the
notion that some book should be our authority is simply outdated, archaic and
complete nonsense.
To be sure, the aforementioned beliefs are in one way, shape,
or form taught and embraced not just in liberal churches, but in most
evangelical churches, and even in some reformed camps. There is no rational
defense for this brand of Christianity because it is no Christianity at all. It
is liberal socialism with the label Jesus stamped on it and nothing more.
[1]
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the
Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia,
1955).
[2]
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the
Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia,
1955).
[3]
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the
Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia,
1955).
[4]
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the
Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia,
1955).
[5]
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith
(The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia, 1955).
[6]
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the
Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia,
1955).
[7]
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the
Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia,
1955).
An excellent summary of the Van Tilian method. Thank you!
ReplyDelete