reformed blogging.

It’s a bit long, but well worth it:

There are two ways to do apologetics. The first is to argue based on the unbelievers presuppositions, which is called traditional or evidential apologetics. In this form of apologetics one tries to convince the unbeliever from a “neutral” point of view that God probably exists, due to evidences, scientific facts, etc. The argument is for a general God, first, then to show that there is a great deal of evidence showing that Christianity might be the true religion. As you might already be able to see through the language, this is an apologetics of probability. The most that anyone can show to an unbeliever is that there is good reason to believe, but not an absolute necessity to believe. In traditional apologetics the Christian is arguing from creation to God, and once he/she has established God the argument goes from historical evidence to Christ. But, again, all of this is based on the presupposition of the unbeliever that either God does not exist, or in unknowable or could be the God of any form of religion. The presupposition that both the unbeliever and Christian are working from is that science and historical evidence holds absolute sway, and thus man holds absolute sway over what is true and what is not, over and above the word of God. Based on these presuppositions, it is impossible to “objectively” show an unbeliever that Christianity is the right religion. The traditional form of apologetics only suggests or, at best, strongly suggests that it is true. Because Christianity is presented as a mere probability it can be dismissed like any other belief. There is no way that the Christian can tell the unbeliever “unless you repent, you will likewise perish.” For such a strong statement must be made on absolutes, namely that Christianity is the only true religion, which, again, cannot be proved upon false, atheistic, God-reducing presuppositions.

The second form of apologetics is what is commonly known as presuppositional apologetics. This differs from traditional in that rather than argue from the unbelievers presuppositions, the Christian digs deeper and argues presuppositions themselves. What does this mean? The Christian challenges the unbelievers underlying beliefs to show that there is really no such thing as neutrality or objectivity on their side. The challenge is this: upon what grounds does the unbeliever dismiss the word of God as untrue and hold science/history as absolute. In evidential apologetics this is often an unchallenged presupposition and to argue from it would be to argue from a bad foundation that can only build a bad house. To lead an unbeliever to Christian Theism one must argue on the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God exists and because He is God and is sovereign and has revealed Himself though creation. Evidence does not serve to merely prove His existence, but affirms it. On top of all this the presuppositionalist recognizes that the unbeliever is in rebellion against God and he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.” Thus, to argue traditionally is not only to argue on false presuppositions, but upon presuppositions that are hostile to God. The unbeliever does not want to believe in the Christian God, and will choose anything whether it be atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Islam, anything is acceptable except for the truth. To seek to know anything based on a consistently non-Christian presupposition is impossible, since such a presupposition is based on chance or on false, inconsistent assumptions. Yet atheists do not live by chance, but live according to basic principles and laws such as the law of gravity or the uniformity of nature, they utilize the laws of logic to figure things out, yet upon atheistic presuppositions this is ridiculous. To hold to the uniformity of nature requires that one believe in more than chance, yet the atheist refuses one and holds to the other. It becomes clear then, to argue with an atheist based on atheistic presuppositions inconsistent from his/her life will only result in sheer absurdity. To utilize the laws of logic (which are blindly accepted as true by the atheist) to argue against God is as preposterous as a child slapping her father in the face and denying his existence while sitting on his knee.

The fact is, God did create the universe, Christ is the Son of God who came and died to reconcile sinners to God. Anyone, then, who refuses this in light of creation (which clearly attests to the power of the invisible God) in light of our ability to utilize logic, or our ability to reason (which is unjustifiable on atheistic grounds which give no reason to adhere to the laws of logic) our sense of morality (again unjustifiable on atheistic presuppositions or any other non-Christian presuppositions for that matter), and finally in light of God’s revelation in Scripture sins against God and is continually in sin until he/she repents. Only upon presuppositional grounds can the Christian present Christ and the Kingdom of God with a demand to repentance. And finally, only upon presuppositional grounds can the Christian offer the free, unconditional gospel of Christ to sinful unbelievers who need Christ’s righteousness as absolute truth and thus absolute good news.

“We accept this God upon Scriptural authority. In the Bible alone do we hear of such a God. Such a God, to be known at all, cannot be known otherwise than by virtue of His own voluntary revelation…. The frank acceptance of our position on authority, which at first blush, because of our inveterate tendency to think along non-Christian lines, seems to involve the immediate and total rejection of all philosophy–this frank acceptance of authority is, philosophically, our very salvation.” - Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace, 8.

“I was brought up on the Bible as the Word of God. Can I, now that I have been to school, still believe in the God of the Bible? Well, can I still believe in the sun that shone on me when I walked as a boy in wooden shoes in Groningen? I could believe in nothing else if I did not, as back of everything, believe in this God. Can I see the beams underneath the floor on which I walk? I must assume or presuppose that the beams are underneath. Unless the beams were underneath, I could not walk on the floor.” - Cornelius Van Til

“If you cannot believe in God, then you cannot logically believe in anything else.” - Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, p.121