7.30.2013 VAN TIL

the following is appendix 1 in the back of a biography, 'Van Til' written by william white, jr. van til was a professor of apologetics (a branch of theology concerned with the defense/proof of christianity) at
westminster seminary in glenside, pa. for many years.

A. my problems with the traditional method (the classic, historic attempts to prove the existence of God, derived primarily from roman catholicism-and especially aquinas-but still widely used even by evangelicals.)

1. this method compromises god Himself by maintaining that His existence is only 'possible'
albeit 'highly probable',
rather than ontologically (having to do with the nature of being or existence) and 'rationally' necessary.
2. it compromises the counsel of God by not understanding it as the
only all inclusive, ultimeate 'cause' of whatsoever comes to pass.
3. it compromises the revelation of god by:
   a. compromising its NECESSITY.
it does so by not recognizing that even in paradise man had to interpret the general (natural
revelation of god in terms of the covenantal obligations placed upon him by God
through specail revealtion.
natural revelation, on the traditional view, can be understood 'on its own'.

   b. conpromising its CLARITY.
both the general (creation) and special (the Bible)  revelation of God
are said to be unclear to the point that
man may say only that God's existence is 'probable.'

   c. compromising its SUFFICIENCY.
it does this by allowing for an ultimate realm of 'chance' out of which might come 'facts'
such as are wholly new for God and for man.
such 'facts' would be uninterpreted and unexplainable in terms of
the general or special revelation of  God.

   d. compromising its AUTHORITY.
on the traditional position the word of god's self attesting characteristic,
and therewith its authority,
is secondary to the authority of reason and experience.
the Scriptures do not identify themselves,
man identifies them and recognizes their 'authority' only in terms of his own authority.

4. it compormises man's creation as the image of God
by thinking of man's creation and knowledge as
independent of the Being and knowledge of God.
on the traditional approach man need not
'think god's thoughts after Him.'
5. it compromises man's covenantal relationship with god by not understanding
adam's representative action as absolutely determinative of the future.
6. it compromises the sinfulness of mankind resulting from the sin of adam
by not understanding man's ethical depravity as extending to the whole of his life,
even his thoughts and attitudes.
7. it compromises the grace of God by not understanding it as
the necessary prerequisite for 'renewal unto knowledge'.
on the traditional view man can and must renew himself unto knowledge
by the 'right use of reason.'

B.my understanding of the relationship between christian and non-christian,
philosophically speaking.

1.both have presuppositions about the nature of reality:
   a. the christian presupposese the triune god and His redemptive plan for the universe
as set forth ONCE FOR ALL in scripture.

   b. the non-chirsitna presupposes a dialectic between 'chance' and 'regularity',
the former acconting for the origin of matter and life,
the latter accounting for the current success of the scientific enterprise.

2. neither can, as finite beings, by means of LOGIC as such,
say what reality MUST  be or CANNOT be.
   a. the christian, therefore, attempts to understand his world
through the observation and logical ordering of facts in
self conscious subjection to the plan of the self attesting Christ of scripture.

   b. the non-christian, while attempting an enterprise similar to the christian's,
attempts nevertheless to use 'logic' to destroy the christian position.
on the one hand, appealing to the NON-RATIONALITY  of 'matter,'
he says that the chance-character of 'facts' is
conclusive evidence against the christian position.
then, on the other hand, he maintains like parmenides
the the christian story cannot possibly be true.
man must be autonomous,
'logic' must be legislative as the the field of 'possiblity'
and possibility must be above God.

3. both claim that their position is 'in accordance with the facts.'
   a. the christian claims this because he interprets the facts and his experience
in th light of the revelation of the self attesting Christ in Scripture.
both the uniformity and the diversity of facts have at their foundation the 
all embracing plan of God.

   b. the non-chirsitn claims this because he interprets the facts and his experience
in the light of the qutonomy of human personality,
the ultimate 'givenness' of the world and
the amenability of matter to mind.
there can be no fact that denies man's autonomy or attests to the world's and man's
divine origin.

4. both claim that their position is 'rational'.
   a. the christian does so by claiming not only that his position is self consistent
but that he can explain both the seemingly 'inexplicable' amenability of fact to logic
and the necessity and usefulness of rationality itself in terms of Scripture.

   b. the non-christian may or may not make this same claim.
if he does, the christian maintains that he cannot make it good.
if the non-christian attempts to account for the amenability of fact to logic
in terms of the ultimate rationality of the cosmos,
then he will be crippled when it comes to explaining
the 'evolution' of men and things.
if he attempts to do so in terms of pure 'chance' and ultimate 'irrationality'
as being the well out of which both rational man and a rationally amenable world sprang,
then we shall point out that such an explanation is in fact no explanation at all
and that it destroys predication. (that which is affirmed or denied concerning the subject of a proposition.)

C. my proposal, therefore, for a consistently christian methodology of apologetics is this:

1. that we use the same principle in apologetics that we use in theology:
the self attesting, self explanatory Christ of Scripture.
2.that we no longer make an appeal to 'common notions'
which christian and non-christian agree on,
but to the 'common ground' which they actually have
because man and his world are what Scripture says they are.

3. that we appeal to man as man, God's image.
we do so only if we set the non-christian principle of
the rational autonomy of man against the christain princilple
of dependence of man's knowledge
on God's knowledge
as revealed in the person and by the Spirit of Christ.
4. that we claim, therefore, that christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold.
it is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of christianity.
chirstianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of 'chance.'
5. that we argue, therefore, by 'presupposition' (that which is taken for truth in advance).
the christian, as did tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position.
the only 'proof' of the CHRISTIAN POSITION is that
UNLESS ITS TRUTH IS PRESUPPOSED
THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF 'PROVING'
ANYTHING AT ALL.
the actual state of affairs as preached by christianity is the necessary foundation of 'proof' itself.
6. that we preach with the understanding that the acceptance of the Christ of Scripture
by sinners who,
being alienated from god,
seek to flee His face,
come about when the Holy Spirit,
in the prsence of inescapably clear evidence,
opens their eyes so that they
SEE THINGS AS THE TRULY ARE.
7. that we present the message and evidence for the christian position
as clearly as possible,
knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is,
the non-christian will be able to understand
in an intellectual sense
the issues involved.
in so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him
what he 'already knows' but seeks to suppress'. (romans 1.18)
this 'reminding' process provides a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit,
who in sovereign grace may grant the non-Christian repentance (van til obviously is calvinistic)
so that he may know Him who is
eternal life.