Another Christian and I were in discussion over the differences among
Christian apologists, particularly the sharp contrast between Cornelius
Van Til's Presuppositional Apologetics and other approaches such as
Evidential and Traditional Apologetics. I found the following
creative dialogue, invented by the authors, to be a helpful way of
differentiating between Van Til's approach and that of Tradional
Apologetics.
R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley, all Reformed in their
theology, wrote: Classical
Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the
Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics
[2]. In chapter 12, "The Starting Point: Primacy of the
Intellect and Autonomy," they state: "To make this whole debate about
autonomy more apparent, we submit an imaginary dialogue between Dr. Van
Til and the traditionalist [i.e. evidential/classical apologist]" (p.
234). VT = Van Til; T = traditional apologist. This
imaginary dialogue is as follows (from pp. 234-239):
VT: If you begin your
thinking relying on your own logical
principles and observations, you are guilty of autonomy.
T: You mean that in that
case we make ourselves a law to
ourselves instead of acknowledging God as the only rightful lawgiver?
VT: Precisely.
T: When we begin our
thought we do not deny that God is the only
rightful lawgiver. We simply do not know, when we begin to think,
that there is a God. If we did, we would certainly admit that He
is the only rightful lawgiver. Would you suggest that we
recognize God as the only rightful lawgiver when we do not know that
there is a God?
VT: I admit, of course,
that you cannot recognize God as the only
rightful lawgiver if you do not know that there is a God. But, if
you are ever going to know that there is a God, you are going to have
to presuppose Him. If you do presuppose Him you will recognize
Him as the only rightful lawgiver and deny your own autonomy.
T: We grant that if we
presuppose God we will in so doing
presuppose that He is the only rightful lawgiver. From that
moment on, we will cease believing ourselves to be autonomous.
But, if WE did presuppose God, would it not be WE who presuppose
Him? That is, would it not be the old autonomous selves that
would now be presupposing God and only then giving up our
autonomy? When YOU presuppose God, is it not YOU, Dr. Van Til,
who presupposes Him? Are not you then as we in that case,
exercising your own autonomy?
VT: Perish that
thought. You may proceed autonomously if
you insist, but I--never!
T: We realize Dr. Van
Til, that you do not now consider yourself
autonomous (nor do we, for that matter, since we too believe in God);
but when you decide to presuppose God, do you not do so of
yourself--autonomously, that is. If not, please explain how you
avoid so doing.
VT: I presuppose God
because that is the only way that I or
anyone else can think.
T: Do you think so?
Is the very fact that you do thinks so
not an autonomous intellectual act? It is you who do that
presuppositional thinking, is it not? It is not God who
presupposes God is it? It is Cornelius Van Til is it not?
Autonomous Cornelius Van Til?
VT: No, it is not God who
presupposes God, but Cornelius Van Til
who presupposes Him, to be sure. However, I am not autonomous in
so doing because He reveals Himself to me and enables me to presuppose
Him.
T: Do you think so?
You see the point of our rhetorical
question. It is always Cornelius Van Til who does the thinking,
even the presuppositional thinking. Do you not autonomously judge
that God has revealed Himself to you in the Scriptures? And in
your heart by the Holy Spirit? Can "private judgment" be avoided
by anyone, including you?
VT: Maybe you have a
point there. But, after that initial
revelation in Scripture and illumination in your heart by the Holy
Spirit which I myself do accept, I yield any conceivable
autonomy. Therefore, I do not try, as you traditionalists do, to
prove God autonomously.
T: Please note, Dr. Van
Til, that we too (once we are convinced
that the Scripture is the Word of God and that the Holy Spirit has
illumined our soul) yield our autonomy as you do. The difference
between us, at this point, seems to be that you claim to accept
Scripture and the internal testimony of the Holy spirit on faith while
we require evidence. We both admit that we accept thee acts as
autonomous acts, but your autonomous acts require no evidence whereas
ours do. You, therefore, consider yourself now free of the charge
of autonomy while we still labor under it. Is that the way you
see it?
VT: Essentially, now, do
you plead guilty to the charge of
autonomy?
T: Yes, we do but we
remind you that you have already pled guilty
to it also at an earlier point. The question is whether we are
holding on to autonomy too long or whether you gave it up too
soon. May we ask you a question?
VT: Yes.
T: Why do you believe
that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
VT: That is an easy
question. I believe that the Bible is
the Word of God because the Bible says that it is the Word of God.
T: Then YOU have THAT
REASON for accepting the Bible and your
autonomy is alive longer than you thought, is it not? Previously
it had seemed that you merely accepted the Bible as the Word of
God. Now, we see that you have a reason for your faith; namely,
that the Bible claims to be the Word of God. Presumably, you
would not accept the Bible as the Word of God if it had not so claimed.
VT: I had not thought of
it quite that way. I guess you can
say that, believing the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is,
is a kind of reason for faith in the Bible. Nevertheless, I do
not need any other evidence as you traditionalists do.
T. We wonder about
that. There are other religious books
which claim to be the Word of God that you do not believe are the Word
of God. Why is that?
VT: Because. . . .
T: Let me interrupt long
enough to say that the very word
"because" means that you do not accept the Bible as the Word of God
merely because it says that it is. Whatever you put after your
"because" is some additional reason beside the mere affirmation.
Perhaps you will say: "Because the Holy Spirit convinces me that the
Bible is the Word of God"?
VT: That is true:
The Holy Spirit does convince me that the
Bible, and no other book, is the Word of God.
T: The Bible you can see
and read; but, how do you recognize the
Holy Spirit?
VT: I am immediately
conscious of His presence.
T: How do you know that
the presence of which you are immediately
conscious is the Holy Spirit? Does He say that He is the Holy
Spirit?
VT: Of course not: not in
so many words or in any words, in
fact. I am a Reformed theologian, you know.
T: Indeed we know that
you are an eminent Reformed theologian and
we honor you as such. But we still would like to ask you how you
know that it is the Holy Spirit in your heart?
VT: I know the answer you
are fishing for and what you will do
with it when you get it. But here goes: I know that it is the
Holy Spirit in my heart because the Bible tells me so. Go ahead
now and accuse me of circular thinking--you seem to delight in that.
T: We will not disappoint
you. We accuse you of circular
reasoning. You believe the Bible is the Word of God because the
Holy Spirit tells you so and you know the Holy Spirit tells you so
because the Bible is the Word of Go. We can well anticipate what
you will say to that, but please tell us whether you admit that you are
reasoning in a circle.
VT: I do not admit it; I
glory in it! What a glorious
circle! From God the Word to God the Spirit and back again.
Why don't you travel in such a divine circle?
T: Seriously, Dr. Van
Til, you certainly see that you are proving
neither the Word of God nor the Spirit of God by such a tactic.
You are a reasonable person and you know as well as anyone that making
the Bible's inspiration rest on the Spirit and the Spirit's testimony
rest on the Bible's inspiration gets you nowhere at all.
VT: I am sorry that you
think so. That circle gets you
everywhere, so to speak. That is, the Word of God gives the
answer to all your questions. Apart from that revelation we
cannot even predicate and on the basis of it we can (thinking God's
thoughts after Him) understand everything.
T: Ah, now we are getting
somewhere. Now we hear something
that sounds like an argument--an autonomous argument at that.
VT: What do you mean?
T: We find you contending
for the Bible as the Word of God
because it explains the world of reality and that it only does.
Are you not saying this?
VT: Indeed I am. Is
it not true?
T: We agree most
heartily. It is true that the Bible is the
Word of God and that it explains everything and that without it we
cannot understand everything or anything ultimately.
VT: You sound like a Van
Tillian. Are you being converted
at long last?
T: It is Van Til who has
become a traditionalist. You are
giving a reason now for believing the Bible--and not a circular reason
either. You are saying that you believe the Bible is the Word of
God because it answers questions only God could answer and makes
predication possible. You are giving a reason for believing the
Bible that we, or any autonomous individuals, can understand and
weigh. Van Til is no longer the Van Tillian and his autonomy is
still alive. Furthermore, we suspect that he does not see himself
as thereby making the creature greater than the Creator simply because
he has a reason for believing that the Creator has revealed Himself in
the Bible.
Here are some links to other approaches to apologetics:
1. I am an Australian family relationships' counselling manager,
doctoral student in biblical studies, an active Christian apologist, and
may be
contacted
at:
P. O. Box 3107, Hervey Bay 4655, Australia.
2. Academie Books (Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids,
Michigan,
1984.
Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free
content.
You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent
License (OPL) version 1.0, or
(at your option) any later
version.
This document last updated at Date: 5 May 2007.
The Truth Challenge 
