The non-Christian worldview, in all its forms, affirms that
experience can be accounted for along autonomous lines. In back of this
statement is the presupposition that human beings, apart from God, can examine
a set of brute facts from the standpoint of neutrality and arrive at the truth
regarding the state of affairs that has obtained in the world. Classical
apologetics, with its full endorsement of natural theology and Aquinas’ second
way, wholeheartedly agree with the statement above along with the underlying presuppositions.
Covenantal apologetics seeks to show that only Christian theism provides the
necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of experience. Human autonomy is
a myth. Brute facts do not exist. Instead, only interpretations of facts exist
where finite man is concerned. Like human autonomy, neutrality in any part of
the human person, is also a myth. Man does not approach life as a blank slate
seeking to fill himself with truth. Scripture testifies against such attitudes
from beginning to end.
In the Q&A section of the SES debate between Jason
Lisle, Richard Howe, and Scott Oliphint, Richard Howe was asked to comment on
the difference between conceptual and ontological necessity in Van Til’s TAG.
Van Til’s TAG is his Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. I was
impressed with the question. I understand what the student was asking. Hence, I
waited with baited breath for Howe to interact with this extremely powerful
argument. However, much to my chagrin, Howe ignored the question and went off
on some other tangent. This lends support to my thesis that Howe has not
bothered to interact with Van Til enough to form an educated and concise
analysis of presuppositionalism at all. I wish he would stop refuting, what, in
my humble opinion, he does not really understand.
When Christian apologists agree that non-Christian
worldviews can account for experience apart from God, they unwittingly adopt
non-Christian thinking. Since Christian theism stands or falls as a unit, this
practice, at a minimum, could result in some very embarrassing encounters in
evangelism. At the very least, it reflects poorly constructed argumentation,
lacking consistency with sound theology. What is worse is that Christian
apologetics must be guided by Christian ethics and the Christian ethic demands
that Christians remain faithful to the truth. Therefore, inconsistency in our
apologetic method runs afoul of our obligation to remain faithful to biblical truth.
Moreover, depending on our motives for this inconsistency, we could rightly be
accused of compromising the truth. This occurs when we formulate apologetic
method in order to maintain respectability from the unbeliever. We desire to
provide an answer that is either not so offensive or one that comports with
their criteria for justification of beliefs.
Covenantal apologetics argues from the start that
argumentation itself, is impossible apart from God. The conditions necessary to
make argumentation possible are what they are only because the state of affairs
that has obtained is what Scripture says it is. This is where covenantal and
classical apologetics differ greatly. And this is the concept that never made
its way into the discussion at the SES conference.
Covenantal apologetics refuses to surrender the criteria of
justification for belief to the demands of the unregenerate. The fact is that
there is a radical difference between unbelieving criteria for justification of
belief, and believing criteria for justification of belief. Hence, what is
necessary to qualify as knowledge in the non-Christian worldview is radically
different from what is necessary to qualify as knowledge in the Christian
worldview. Classical apologetics inherently fails to make this basic
distinction, and this leads to unnecessary confusion and inconsistency in the
field of Christian apologetics.
In summary then, Richard Howe’s inference that use of human
language justifies granting to the unbeliever a natural born neutrality when it
comes to such things as evidence, criteria, and justification is just plain
wrong. Neutrality is a myth. The state of affairs that has obtained is such
that all men, being created in the image of God, are born with an innate and
clear knowledge of the Creator. This knowledge is so perspicuous that Paul
informs us in Romans one that all unbelievers are without an apologetic for
their non-Christian worldview. They are without excuse. Unbelief is
indefensible according to Scripture. Yet, it seems to me that classical
apologetics legitimizes the unbelieving apologetic to a very large degree by surrendering
ground where it should not. At a minimum, classical apologetics seems far too
sympathetic with the Satanic question: does God exist? It is not a fair nor
reasonable question. In fact, it is a question that is thoroughly wicked from
end to end. Not only is it a wicked question where morality is concerned, it is
a profoundly irrational question. Christians used to be shocked by such foolish
speculations. How dare the creature ask such audaciously arrogant questions
like this one! But today, we extend respectability to such an inquiry. It is a
virtue of the enlightened mind, after all, to ask critical questions, to give
oneself to critical reflection. Indeed, the intellectual endeavors of human
speculation are boundless to listen to some even in the Christian camp.
For Richard Howe to presume that the rules of human language
presuppose neutrality in not only what those rules are, but also, how those
rules are employed, is in my opinion, unjustifiable. The fact is that the rules
for human language are absolutely unintelligible absent Christian theism. To
argue that our use of those rules justifies the neutral employment of logic and
evidence is simply quite a fallacious argument and it demonstrates that Howe
simply misses the point of covenantal apologetics. The experience of language,
logic, and evidence only makes sense in Christian theism. Every other attempt
to explain these phenomena falls short because every other non-Christian
worldview collapses in on itself when it is subjected to internal critique.
Man knows God exists. God has made certain of it. Therefore,
I do not need to prove to anyone that God exists. When I accept the claim that
a person does not know if God exists or does not believe that God exists, I am
rejecting what God says about that person’s knowledge of Himself. This is
neither right nor safe and it is not in keeping with biblical apologetics. All
men pervert the revelation of God they have been given, suppressing the
knowledge of God within and around them. Absent the work of grace on the heart,
by the person of the Holy Spirit, man will always approach the subject of God
from the position of an affirmed and hostile antagonist. Unregenerate man is a
God hater by nature. This is the basic theological commitment of covenantal
apologetics. Hence, it is wildly antithetical to the classical notion that
unregenerate men actually are not sure if God exists. Moreover, these men are
capable of approaching the question of God in a neutral fashion. Furthermore,
these men can be persuaded that God exists if given the right evidence in just the
right way. From there, they may be convinced to accept the rest of the
teachings of Christian theism and decide to follow Christ. The disparity between
these two schools is indeed overwhelming.
