metaphysical but not ethical: the question of common ground in van til’s apologetics

8/16/2019 Metaphysical but not Ethical: The question of common ground in Van Til’s Apologetics

1/18

Marcus WolfordST 501

Dr. Michael Horton12/03/2010

Metaphysical but not Ethical: The question of commonground in Van Til’s Apologetics

Introduction

Apologetics is priaril! a"out setting apart #hrist as $ord %1 peter 3&15

'()*. This passage in 1 +eter is the ost cited scripture used in reference to

our defense of the #hristian faith, ho-eer, it is usuall! heard uoted as

starting -ith, al-a!s "e prepared to gie an ans-er, there"! copletel!

issing the purpose of apologetics. ur goal as #hristians in defense of our

faith is to proclai the truthfulness of the clai that 4esus #hrist is $ord. (n

other -ords, -e are sipl! called to defend the gospel of 4esus #hrist. +aul

is the an -e no- "est as "eing the eangelist to the 6entiles, proclaier

of the truth to the 7oan 8pire, and shepherd to the churches, ho-eer,

he -as also a faithful apologist -hen challenged "! his opponents. While

iprisoned he encouraged the church of +hilipi, ( hold !ou in ! heart, for

!ou are all partaers -ith e of grace, "oth in ! iprisonent and in the

defense and con9ration of the gospel: and in erse 1; he states the

reason he is in his chains, ( a put here for the defense of the gospel.1

#ornelius )an Til, -ho is no-n as "eing the father of presuppositional

apologetics, continuousl! stressed this point, that in our defense of the

1 +hilippians 1&


2/18

6ospel -e ust proclai #hrist as $ord fro the er! "eginning of our

defense. An alternatie ethod, -hich is t!picall! tered #lassical

Apologetics, "egins the discussion of 6od and the -orld on a neutral

coon ground and through a rationalist forula eentuall! leading the

sinner to the Truth of #hrist=s $ordship. )an Til strongl! opposed an! ind of

neutralit! of "elief concerning 6od and an, and ephasi>ed that one=s

ultiate truth or authorit! ust also deterine and "e openl! e?pressed in

their foundation or preises for that ultiate authorit!. )an Til stressed that

there -as a great ethical and episteological antithesis "et-een the

"elieer and the un"elieer, -hich -as grounded in a coon etaph!sical

relationship. The point of di@erence is a uestion of authorit!, -hich stes

fro ones ethics. #hristians "eliee that the! are sinful creatures

diso"edient to 6od in Ada, and ade o"edient through faith in #hrist,

there"! dependent upon the soereign Triune 6od of the i"le -ho is their

ultiate authorit!. Bn"elieers hold that the! are not sinful, are

autonoous and not dependent on 6od, there"! setting theseles up in

place of 6od as the ultiate authorit! and therefore capa"le of rightl!

interpreting truth for theseles. The current paper -ill "e in support of )an

Til=s arguent for the coon ground or point of reference -ith the

un"elieer, -hich is etaph!sical, "! also sho-ing the great ethical

antithesis.

Ethics and Epistemology

2


3/18

8ngaging in a defense of the faith -ill autoaticall! "ring up o"ious

di@erences "et-een a "elieer and un"elieer, ho-eer the point )an Til

ade is that ethicall! speaing the! hae a"solutel! nothing in coon.

When Satan set the trap of autono! an too the "ait and "rought sin into

the -orld. Cro that point on, 6od put enit! "et-een "elieers and

un"elieers. Cro the earliest eidence of the coenant of 6race, -e see

6od la!ing out the antithesis in the protoeangeliu, ( -ill put enit!

"et-een !ou and the -oan, and "et-een !our o@spring and her o@spring:

he shall "ruise !our head, and !ou shall "ruise his heel %6en 3&15*. 6od

-as separating his people -ho -ould follo- in the line of A"raha, through

A"raha=s seed, -hich is the Messiah, fro those -ho are the o@spring of

the serpent, literall! children of the Deil %4ohn &EE*. (f the -alls of this

antithesis -ere to "e torn do-n, the er! essage of #hrist -ould lose all

eaning. #hrist cae to sae sinners, speci9call! the children of the

-oan, the children of A"raha %6al. 3&1;,2F*. Satan=s chief tactic of

teptation is for an to lose dependence on 6od for all no-ledge of life "!

putting an in the position of 6od as autonoous there"! capa"le of "eing

the priar! Gudge and interpreter of all things. Satan is er! cleer, !et at

the sae tie er! consistent and predicta"le in his teptations and is

currentl! tepting "elieers to rid theseles of this antithesis "et-een

"elieer and un"elieer. +aul e?horted the #orinthian church to stand fast in

their coitent to #hrist "! eeping theseles clean fro fello-ship -ith

the seed of the serpent, Do not "e uneuall! !oed -ith un"elieers. Cor

3


4/18

-hat partnership has righteousness -ith la-lessness r -hat fello-ship has

light -ith darness What accord has #hrist -ith elial r -hat portion

does a "elieer share -ith an un"elieer What agreeent has the teple

of 6od -ith idols %2 #or. ;&1EI1;* All of +aul=s rhetorical uestions are

ans-ered -ith a resounding, nothingJ 4esus hiself said that he cae to

"ring a diisie s-ord "et-een failies %Matt. 10&3E*, and proclaied all

those -ho -ere not -ith hi -ere against hi %Matt. 12&30*, "ecause no

an can sere t-o asters %Matt. ;&2E*.

#ornelius )an Til too an ethical antithesis to also ean an

episteological antithesis as he states in Defense of the Caith, That all en

hae all things in coon etaph!sicall! and ps!chologicall! -as de9nitel!

asserted, and further, that the natural an has episteologicall! nothing in

coon -ith the #hristian. And this latter assertion -as uali9ed "! sa!ing

that this is so onl! in principle.2 )an Til=s episteolog! as applied to the

un"elieer is -hat has "een ost t-isted, confused, and disagreed upon.

He rightl! held that our episteolog! is grounded and controlled "! our

ethics. The function of the ind and the corruption of the heart cannot "e

separated. The refored doctrine of total deprait! is totalIperson

deprait!.3 +aul the great apologist sees to al-a!s ae a connection

2 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4 ed., ed. K. Scott Oliphint (New Jersey: P ! Pu"lishin#, $%%&',).

3 Scott Oliphint and *ane +. Tipton, eds., Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics (Phillips"ur#, N.J.: P ! Pu"lishin#, $%%', -&.

E


5/18

"et-een the hostilit! of sinners "efore a hol! 6od and their a"ilit! to thin&

Cor the ind that is set on the Kesh is hostile to 6od, for it does not su"it

to 6odLs la-: indeed, it cannot %7o. &< *, and in #ol. 1&21, aNnd !ou, -ho

once -ere alienated and hostile in ind episteolog!N, doing eil ethicsN

deeds %#ol 1&21*.E

(t a! "e useful to hae a read! de9nition of 8pisteolog! for a "etter

understanding of )an Til=s thought. The -ord episteolog!, -hich deries

fro the 6ree -ords epistee and logos, eans Oa discourse on %or stud!

of* no-ledge.=5

8en if !ou ased a group of people -hat the! ean -hen

the! sa!, ( no- soething, !ou ight get a collection of di@erent

ans-ers. Pno-ledge in the intellectual sense is a su"categor! of "elief& to

no- soething is, at least, to "eliee it.; What good is no-ing soething

if soeone else also no-s soething contrar! to -hat !ou no-, "ecause

!ou "oth cannot "e right, therefore soeone ust not hae trul! no-n

-hat the! proclaied to no-. So then, instances of no-ing are instances

of "elieing, "ut one can no- a proposition onl! if it is true.


6/18

proclai to no- through Gusti9ed "elief the truth of 6od as portra!ed in the

i"le.

)an Til neer uestions if the un"elieer has the a"ilit! to use reason, or

ealuate the facts of this unierse. He rather "oldl! states that the

un"elieer can neer use reason reasona"l!, and his intelligence is al-a!s

unintelligi"le. So the un"elieer cannot use an! of his faculties rightl! in

interpreting 6od=s natural reelation in #reation "ecause he is

siultaneousl! hostile to the one -ho created the. At this point it ust "e

contended that sin e@ects the -hole an including his a"ilit! to reason,

-hich is called the noetic e@ect of sin. Sin produces a conceptual -arfare,

and as 4ohn Crae puts it, the un"elieer=s pro"le is 9rst ethical, and onl!

secondaril! intellectual. His intellectual pro"les ste fro his ethical

un-illingness to acno-ledge the eidence. Bn"elief distorts huan

thought. The un"elieer is a -aling episteic failure, "ecause he fails to

"egin -ith the fear of the $ord, -hich is the "eginning of all -isdo and

no-ledge %+sal 110&10: +ro. 1&


7/18

4udge and the starting point for interpretation. Soeone -ho thins

autonoousl! cannot interpret reelation accuratel!, -hich is dependent on

an autonoous 6od. (n order for one to rightl! interpret the facts, the! ust

rightl! interpret theseles, and it is not liel! that an!one -ill intellectuall!

assue to "e a sinner and nonIsinner at the sae tie. #alin "egan his

(nstitutes -ith this dou"le aspect of no-ledge that ust "e actuali>ed in

order for no-ledge to "e true consistent no-ledge -hen he said, Without

no-ledge of self there is no no-ledge of 6od. 'earl! all the -isdo -e

possess, that is to sa!, true and sound -isdo, consists of t-o parts& the

no-ledge of 6od and of ourseles.F Therefore as the i"le sa!s, there is

onl! 6odl! -isdo and -orldl! -isdo, for sin has corrupted the natural

an, aing hi futile in his thining%7o. 1&21*.

)an Til -as sipl! "eing consistent -ith his refored theolog!, "! o"Gecting

to an! neutralit! -ith the "elieer and aintaining that sin e@ect=s the -hole

an. This is consistent -ith Westinster=s $arger #atechis, as uestion 2

reads, What are the punishents of sin in this -orld A. The punishents

of sin in this -orld are either in-ard, as "lindness of ind, a repro"ate

sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and ile

a@ections We should therefore stand strong -ith )an Til in our defense of

the faith, "! neer alidating the un"elieer in his a"ilit! to rightl! deterine

the ultiate truth of all things.

F John Calin, alvin: !nstit"tes of the hristian Religion #$ Vol"me %et&, --) translation ed., ed. John T. 5cNeill(*ondon: 1est2inster John Kno6 Press, )0%', 7-.


8/18

Common Ground and the nbelie!ers "truggle

The coon ground "et-een the "elieer and un"elieer is ultiatel!

etaph!sical, as -as uoted a"oe, That all en hae all things in coon

etaph!sicall! and ps!chologicall! -as de9nitel! asserted10 )an Til does

not use the -ord ps!chological as it is coonl! used toda! in the

scienti9c 9eld of ps!cholog!, he sipl! eans the inner soul of an ade in

the iage of 6od.11 Bltiatel! 6od is the coon ground, "ecause he

created all things, including the hostile re"els -ho den! hi.

The coon connection or underl!ing contact point -ith the un"elieer is

grounded in the 9rst E -ords of the i"le, (n the "eginning, 6od %6en. 1&1*.

The stor! of creation then follo-ed according to 6od=s plan "! aing an

in his iage %6en 1&2;I2


9/18

according to 6od=s reealed -ord, all people are "orn into a "roen coenant

in Ada %7o. 5&15I1F* -ith the ina"ilit! to eep the coenant, !et still

reain under its o"ligations.

The priar! point of coonalit! is that all people are "oth in Ada, and

created in 6od=s iage. All people are coenant "reaers, "ut the "elieer

through the grace of 6od has "ecoe a coenant eeper through #hrist,

-hile the un"elieer in his hostilit!, reGects #hrist, and reains a coenant

"reaer "efore 6od. Scott liphant points out that he is unsatis9ed -ith the

ter presuppositional apologetics, "ecause of its confusing terinolog!, and

prefers instead the ter coenantal apologetics "ased upon this priar!

point of contact -ithin the coenant of -ors.13

)an Til contends that through their "eing created in 6od=s iage, still "eing

under a coenantal relationship -ith 6od of -hich the! cannot aoid, and "!

seeing 6od reealed eer!-here -ithin general reelation, un"elieers

ultiatel! no- the realit! and truth of the triune 6od of scripture.1E

Heran ainc states this truth so elouentl!,

All no-ledge of 6od rests on reelation. Though -e can neerno- 6od in the full richness of his "eing, he is no-n to allpeople through his reelation in creation, the theater of his glor!. The -orld is neer godless. (n the end there are no atheists:there is onl! arguent a"out the nature of 6od. The recognition

13 Scott Oliphint, ;Presuppositionalis2,< K. Scott Oliphint 1ritin#s, http:==2ysite.eri>on.net=oliphint=1ritin#s=?@$%Coenantal@$%?polo#etic.ht2 (accessed Aece2"er $, $%%'.

1E Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 0.

F

http://mysite.verizon.net/oliphint/Writings/A%20Covenantal%20Apologetic.htmhttp://mysite.verizon.net/oliphint/Writings/A%20Covenantal%20Apologetic.htmhttp://mysite.verizon.net/oliphint/Writings/A%20Covenantal%20Apologetic.htmhttp://mysite.verizon.net/oliphint/Writings/A%20Covenantal%20Apologetic.htm


10/18

is uniersal of a po-er greater than huan "eings theseles,to -ho the! o-e piet!.15

This unit! of an in 6od=s iage, in Ada, and in coenant, creates the

point of contact and the onl! point of contact "! -hich a #hristian speas to

an un"elieer. The coenant "reaer should "e confronted -ith this realit!,

that the! ust gie an account for their lies as "eing su"Gect to the la- of

6od. The preacher of He"re-s aes 6od=s -ord clear that no creature is

hidden fro his sight, "ut all are naed and e?posed to the e!es of hi to

-ho -e ust gie account %He" E&13*.

There is a terrif!ing struggle and "attle that is going on in the un"elieer as

he tries to siultaneousl! den! 6od and e?alt hiself as autonoous -hile

at the sae tie he possesses true no-ledge of the 6od he is den!ing.

This is ade clear through perhaps the ost cited scripture that )an Til

appeals to, 7oans 1&1I21, -hich sa!s,

Cor the -rath of 6od is reealed fro heaen against allungodliness and unrighteousness of en, -ho "! theirunrighteousness suppress the truth. Cor -hat can "e no-na"out 6od is plain to the, "ecause 6od has sho-n it to the.Cor his inisi"le attri"utes, nael!, his eternal po-er and diinenature, hae "een clearl! perceied, eer since the creation ofthe -orld, in the things that hae "een ade. So the! are-ithout e?cuse. Cor although the! ne- 6od, the! did not honorhi as 6od or gie thans to hi, "ut the! "ecae futile in theirthining, and their foolish hearts -ere darened.

This scripture sets forth "oth the antithesis and coonalit! in apologetics.

The coonalit! is that 6od is clearl! no-n through his inisi"le attri"utes,

15 8er2an ainc9, od and reation, ol. $ oB Reformed Dogmatics (+rand !apids, 5ich.: a9er ?cade2ic,$%%4', -7.

10


11/18

and the antithesis is that un"elieers are constantl! at -or in suppressing

this truth "! eans of their sin/unrighteousness. This is a er! trou"ling

e?perience and position, -hich the un"elieer has put hiself in, "ecause he

is in constant denial of the foundation "! -hich he stands. (n fact, the

un"elieer is in a t!pe of 7oans < suppression of the old an constantl! at

-or in hi, siilar to our constant suppression of our old an. The

un"elieer is constantl! at -ar in his e"ers -ith his old an, -hich is the

preIfall Ada or sipl! the iage of 6od -ithin hi. This e?plains his a"ilit!

to do -hat a! naturall! loo good -hile at the sae tie is carried out

-ith sinful, autonoous oties. The un"elieer -ill neer "e copletel!

successful in his suppression of his old an %iage of 6od* "ecause if he

-ere, he -ould cease to e?ist. (n the sae -a!, on this side of 6lor!

#hristians -ill neer "e copletel! successful in suppressing their old an.1;

The old an of the un"elieer no-s and "ears testion! to hi is a

re"el to a Hol! 6od, liing irrationall! as a coenant "reaer, "ecause the

foundation upon -hich he lies is the er! thing he denies. ecause there is

this denial of self, and suppression of the truth upon -hich he stands1


12/18

an as the ultiate reference point nothing can ae sense or correctl! "e

Gudged.

Metaph!sicall! an has a foundation to stand on, and reason to -or -ith,

ho-eer, "ecause of their sinful re"ellion, the! episteologicall! -ipe out

their o-n foundation leaing the running a-a! fro 6od, using a "od! 6od

created, on a road 6od "uilt, -ithin the -orld 6od ade. As 6reg ahsen

put it,

(t no- appears that the cople?it! and confusion thatcharacteri>e the un"elieer=s no-ledge of 6od are the result of

an internal contradiction or tension in the un"elieer hiself Rone -hich he is un-illing to recogni>e or confess, lest his guilt"efore 6od "ecoe eident. He lies out of t-o conKictingfrae-ors of thought or t-o indIsetsThe un"elieer is aliing contradiction.1

So our coon ground or point of reference -hen speaing to the

un"elieer is directl! to the reason for this tension. This reason, -hich has

"een deonstrated, is the iage of 6od or the old an that is at -ar -ith

the re"el sinner. ur coon ground in other -ords is the un"elieer=s old

an.

#b$ections from Classical Apologists

The priar! disagreeent of coon ground is forulated upon a natural

theolog!, -hich necessaril! 9nds its coon ground on episteolog! or

reason. Aong a fe- of the proponents of this position are& Stuart Hacet,

'oran 6eisler, 7.#. Sproul, 4.+. Moreland, Willia $ane #raig, #.S. $e-is,

1 ahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic) 4-$.

12


13/18

Thoas Auinas and a aGorit! of 7oan #atholics. This position ust

aintain that the un"elieer has a legitiate autono! of reason.1F Man

has the a"ilit! to rightl! deterine the nature of 6od "ased upon natural

capacities of sense perception, rational selfIeidence, and coon odes

of reasoning all apart fro an! special reelation.20 These natural

capacities for the coon ground "et-een the "elieer and un"elieer.

ne of the fathers of this use of natural theolog! is Thoas Auinas. He

"elieed that "elieers -ere uantitatiel! di@erent then un"elieers, in that

the! had ore no-ledge. This ade for Auinas, special reelation

priaril! suppleentatie to general reelation.21 #lassical apologists

assue that an=s reasoning is episteologicall! intelligi"le in itself,

there"! the! t!picall! start -ith neutral clais "ased on reason, -hich then

oes the sinner to agree upon soe for of god.22 Then onl! after this

has "een esta"lished, the apologist "egins to gie theistic arguents for the

#hristian 6od.23 This is clearl! seen in Auinas=s 5 -a!s, -here he la!s out

9e proofs or pro"a"le arguents for 6od=s e?istence. Auinas purposefull!

1F Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, &%.

20 *ane Crai#, Five Views) 44.

21 ahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic) )4.

22 /"id., -7.

23 /"id.

13


14/18

does this "efore he deonstrates an! attri"utes of 6od. (t is "aing to thin

ho- one could argue for a god that has no attri"utes. This -ould "e no

"etter then conincing soeone of the 6rees unno-n 6od fro Acts 1


15/18

The #hristian -ho hopes to persuade the coenant "reaer that there is

salation in "elieing in the coenant eeper, should neer hae

episteological fello-ship -ith the un"elieer for this -ill gie hi alidit! in

his a"ilit! to thin rationall! as the autonoous ultiate reference point of

interpretation. 7# Sproul sees to leae his theolog! at the doorstep of

apologetics -hen he liits sins e@ects on the ind in sa!ing, Soething is

-rong -ith the heart R not the ind.2


16/18

is not that the un"elieer is sipl! not "elieing in a general unIoed

oer god, "ut the truth is that all nonI#hristians are notI"elieing in the

Triune 6od of the #hristian scriptures -ho created the in his o-n iage.

Therefore the apologist should actuall! appeal to the un"elieer on the "asis

of -hat he does not "eliee in. )an Til=s point holds strong ground, that

there cannot "e an! intellectual handshaing -hen it coes to correctl!

interpreting 6od=s reelation. The #hristian faith ust "e presupposed fro

the "eginning of the defense of the 6ospel, "ecause the #hristian

foundations are "uilt -ith the precise content that it is proclaiing to hold

up.

Conclusion

The coon ground "et-een the "elieer and un"elieer is ultiatel! onl!

etaph!sical through coenant and the creation of an as iage "earer,

-hile aintaining the great antithetical chas of ethics, -hich in turn

directl! e@ects episteolog!. The apologist ust set #hrist apart as $ord

%1 +et. 3&15 '()* fro the 9rst -ord of an! conersation, "! also taing

eer! thought captie to o"e! #hrist %2 #or. 10&5*. #hristians ust

aintain a strong ethical antithesis, so the! a! adeuatel! sho- the

irrationalit! of the un"elieer in accord -ith the etaph!sical coon

ground. The apologist should tr! to reeal the intellectual re"ellion and not

allo- the un"elieer to "e successful in his attepts to interpret the truth,

1;


17/18

other-ise a neutral ground -ill appeal to the autonoous self as if it reall!

e?isted and all attepts of defense -ill "e futile.2F

+resuppositional apologetics is prophetic in that it sho-s the un"elieer -hat

the Hol! Sprit -ill do if he accepts 4esus #hrist as $ord and coenant eeper.

The attept is to reeal that the foundation "! -hich he stands on and is

-holl! dependent on, is the Triune 6od. The apologist holds that spiritual

"lindness results in an episteic failure of recogni>ing the preIconditions for

all things. A real acno-ledgent of the truth does not coe through a

rational arguent for 6od=s e?istence, "ut is -hen the sinner adits that he

is a coenant "reaer, and this can onl! "e done through repentance and

faith in #hrist. Cor -ho -ould acno-ledge theseles to "e coenant

"reaers unless the! -ere also siultaneousl! coenant eepers through

#hrist=s o"edient -or. (n the sae -a!, there is onl! no- no

condenation for those -ho are in #hrist, -hen those sinners confess and

reali>e the! desere condenation.30 The sinner needs to "e confronted

-ith his open re"ellion against the 6od -ho created hi. This ust "e done

"! recogni>ing the coon ground in the #reator on -hich to appeal, and

the ethical antithesis on -hich to sound the attac of oral culpa"ilit!.

2F ahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic) 44%.

30 7oans &1

1


18/18

1

metaphysical but not ethical: the question of common ground in van til’s apologetics

Documents