Theology Proper and Hermeneutics

In Philosophy of Religion and Analytic Theology much ink is spilt on arguing for the coherence of theism. But of course there are different rival models of God. Some are within orthodoxy and some are not. But the important point is they are models. Theories built from Biblical data (and/or theological, philosophical and scientific reflection) to provide a coherent and consistent story of God’s nature and character. Oliver Crisp defines a model roughly as, “a simplified conceptual framework or description by means of which complex data sets, systems, and processes may be organized and understood.”[1] Why construct models? An obvious reason is to demonstrate Christian doctrines are not logically impossible. But how does Biblical interpretation interplay with constructing models of God? I want to focus on three hermeneutical approaches. Perhaps more approaches can be discussed but would go beyond the scope of my intentions here. Now it should be said that all three approaches are nuanced enough to deal with literal and figurative language in Scripture. So I will simply speak broadly. The first approach takes language about God analogically in Scripture. Scripture is viewed as God’s self-disclosure and condescension to us with anthropomorphic, anthropopathic and zoomorphic language. Hence, it must be stressed that such language should not be taken as wooden literalism. Classical theism consistently argues from this first approach. The second approach interprets language about God univocally in Scripture. Scripture is viewed as God’s self-disclosure to us with literal (i.e. non-anthropomorphic or non-anthropopathic) language. Therefore, it is stressed that such language must be taken as literal. Thus when Scripture says God changes His mind this approach takes such language to be really the case. Open theism consistently advocates this approach. The third approach interprets language about God univocally or analogically in Scripture. Scripture is viewed as God’s self-disclosure to us with literal and figurative language. Consequently, it is stressed that such language must be determined in each relevant case. Thus when Scripture states God is angry or God changes His mind such statements cannot simply be interpreted as literal (i.e. non-anthropomorphic or non-anthropopathic) without overriding reasons. Overriding reasons may be reasons or evidences that render such an interpretation implausible or unreasonable. For example, Scriptures explicit teaching that God knows all things, including past, present and future events. Or that Saul of Tarsus was storing up God’s wrath as an enemy of God; but, by God’s sovereign mercy and grace Saul became Paul a friend and minister of God.  Indeed, this third approach does not have a straightforward, across the board, interpretation in all cases. The presumption of the analogia fidei principle is to be foundational. The literary genre and authorial intent is to be considered. Church history, creeds and confessions, if relevant, may be consulted. Moreover, undesirable intractable theo-philosophical problems that arise from any given interpretation may also be weighed. 

[1] Oliver Crisp. Analyzing Doctrine: Toward a Systematic Theology (Baylor UP, 2019), p86. 

Criticisms of Clark

Why not follow Gordon Clark or Cornelius Van Til's apologetic methodology? I think they both had strengths and weaknesses. Robert Reymond constructed a synthesis of their strengths. Dr. Reymond's book is available for free entitled "The Justification of Knowledge".

Criticisms of Dr. Clark's Philosophy 

(1) Arbitrary Axiom 

(1)* Scripturalism is self-refuting (e.g. AquaScum)

(2) Robust Thomistic divine simplicity with its inherent denial of the Trinity.

(3) Denial of the free offer of the gospel.

(4) Voluntarism 

(5) Eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The Son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit eternally derived/proceed from the Father as the original source. This derivation is conditioned upon the Father's decree. 

(6) Necessitarianism with its entailed dependence upon creation

(7) Continuous creation with its denial of personal identity through time

(8)Unlivability. Basic knowledge (e.g. non-propositional knowledge of self) cannot be known only asserted as mere opinion.

(9) The three Persons of the Trinity are merely instances of a genus, namely, God. Hence, a Quadrinity.

(10) The obscurity of Clark's epistemology. Clark demands a definition of sensations from empiricists but does not explain precisely how humans come to know propositions via divine illumination through recollection/reminiscence. 

(11) Incompatibilism (Hard Determinism)

(12) Saving faith is merely understanding and assent

(13) The Son within the incarnation there possessed two distinct natures with two minds. This sounds awfully close to Nestorianism without the proper nuances (e.g. Thomas Morris).
(14) Primacy of the intellect
(15) Occassionalism
(16) Univocal knowledge of God
(17) Denial of theological paradoxes
(18) Supralapsarianism

Clark's Thought

After some criticism from a friend, on my previous post of Clark and Van Til, I repost this article on Dr. Gordon Clark to be more balanced (i.e. less VanTillian). This is a repost from my Clark blog (here).

I would like to just highlight a few of the important features of Dr. Gordon Haddon Clark's system of thought. For a more complete introduction to Dr. Clark's thought see Gary W. Crampton's, Trinity Review, entitled, Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview (here)

Epistemology

Dr. Gordon Clark first would start with epistemology. Since before there can be talk of objects there must be established a system that can bring together subjects and objects. There must be an epistemic axiom, a starting point, that makes knowledge possible. Dr. Clark would argue that knowledge is possible, not by sensation or reason but, by divine propositional revelation. 

 Significantly, contrary to what Empiricism maintains, sensations can never convey or organize information that has truth-value. Nor can knowledge come from the senses in virtue of the ontology, ambiguity, unreliability, and relativity of sensations. Yet God created all mankind with innate propositional knowledge. However, this knowledge can only come to man's mind by Jesus Christ, the Divine Logos, revealing the propositional Word of God. 

As the Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine Logos, reveals the propositional Word of God to our minds we come to know the only axiom that can furnish us knowledge is the Bible alone, God's very thoughts and words for man. By the same token, we know the biblical axiom's deduced propositions entail consistency, coherence and richness to provide a system of thought that can account for Religion, Knowledge, Science, History, Politics, and Ethics.     

Metaphysics

It is disputed among Clarkian scholars if Clark was an Absolute Idealist. Dr. Robert Reymond and Dr. Ronald Nash both thought this. Dr. Reymond writes,

"Quoting Acts 17:28, “In him we live, and move, and have our being,” Clark affirms that “the New Testament is clear: we live and move and have our being in God’s mind,” and he then draws the conclusion that “our existence in the mind of God puts us in contact with the ideas in the mind of God.” Quoting 1 Corinthians 2:16 and Philippians 2:5, Clark asserts that these verses mean that “our mind and Christ’s mind overlap or have a common area or coincide in certain propositions” (ibid., p. 406–407). This obviously means for Clark that our thoughts, indeed, our very existence, are real only in the sense that God is thinking us and our thoughts. But this is a form of absolute idealism."(1)

I tend to be more charitable of Clark and view his thought in the tradition of St. Augustine who gleaned from the insights of Plato. So in my interpretation of Clark's metaphysics he is a realist.  There is an objective world independent of human minds. However, God is the creator, sustainer, and goal of all things. And thus God's mind is the standard and power that sustains and relates human minds and the world together. Therefore, there is a distinction between the Creator and creation. 

In Clark's view, God determines all things. By God's decree man was created in the very image of God. Whereby God communicated to man the same quality of rationality. Such that God and man think the same thoughts. Moreover, God's knowledge is exhaustive while man's knowledge is limited and dependent upon divine revelation. 

Some have suggested Clark brings God down to man's level since there is no significant creator/creature distinction. But quite the opposite, the distinction between the Creator and creature lies in the very designation of the 'Creator' and 'creature.' The former is the originator, the latter is not. More can be cited but I find it unnecessary here.  

Ethics

Dr. Clark held to a divine command theory of ethics. So he emphasized God's sovereignty over any moral intuitions man may have; and he grounded objective moral values in God's will and decree. Since divine simplicity tells us that God wills His own existence, and character. We conclude then, God also wills what commandments man ought to obey. But not being himself bound by the commandments He establishes for man. 

For Dr. Clark there is no such thing as free-will, man is accountable simply by the fact that God is the highest authority, who has established obligations to man, that will hold man responsible for disobedience. As Dr. Clark writes 

“God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though He is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that He does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does…God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids Him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is “Ex-lex.” (2)

---------------------

(1) Robert Reymond. The Justification of Knowledge. p.72.

(2) Gordon H. Clark. Christian Philosophy, vol 4. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004. p. 269.
See also Sean Gerety's recent post, God is Not Responsible For Sin. 

Clark and Van Til

There are two very different traditions of presuppositionalism. The first comes from Dr. Gordon H. Clark. Dr. Clark understood Christianity as a system of thought. He treated it much like Euclidian Geometry. The Christian system is comprised of propositions (or theorems) that are deduced from the axiom of scripture. The axiom (first principle, or presupposition) for the Christian is the Bible alone is the Word of God. This axiom is selected among other possible axioms because of God’s illumination (by Christ and the Holy Spirit) and the axiom’s consistency and richness, i.e. its ability to provide knowledge. In other words, unlike other possible axioms, God reveals the Christian axiom to be true and it can solve problems in Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics. 

Dr. Clark’s presuppositionalism follows the tradition of Augustine's rationalism with its denial of sense perception. But contra traditional Rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, Dr. Clark argued the laws of logic (i.e. the laws: of identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction, rational inference) have no content to them; hence, the laws as our sole axiom furnish us with very few theorems, if any.  Thus the laws of logic alone are not broad enough as an axiom. We must start from the sure foundation of Scripture. As the Holy Spirit has revealed it's truth to our minds. By this standard Dr. Clark repudiates all forms of Empiricism and uses this as an advantage in apologetics. This approach can be properly distinguished from traditional Rationalism as Dogmatism or Scripturalism. As Dr. Clark argued forcefully that knowledge is exclusively what is deduced explicitly or implicitly by the axiom of Scripture. This axiom, as a presupposition, is shown to be true by the Holy Spirit; and by the axiom's ability to solve simple and complex problems in thought. 

Dr. Clark was a Philosopher par excellence. So Clark’s main arsenal in apologetics is logical analysis of worldviews. He quite often, and brilliantly if I might add, uses reductio ad absurdum type arguments in refuting detractors.

    

The second tradition in the presuppositional school comes from Dr. Cornelius Van Til. Dr. Van Til thought of everything in terms of worldviews with presuppositions (e.g. Kuyper). But also acknowledged, as the Old Princeton School per Thomas Reid, all men as image bearers of God know Him innately, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The noetic effects of sin preclude man from coming to a saving knowledge of God. Moreover, man as a rebel against God views himself as autonomous (i.e. the final standard for meaning and truth). However, the noetic effects of sin does not render apologetics useless. Van Til, unlike Abraham Kuyper, believed Christians have an ultimate proof of Christianity at its disposal—the transcendental argument for God’s existence. The first step to this approach is to deny religious neutrality and human autonomy. There is no middle ground between worldviews. A person is either committed to Christ or Satan. One either affirms Christianity or a token of the Non-Christian type. Furthermore only God, as described in Scripture, is the ultimate standard of meaning and truth. Here is where Dr. Van Till’s brilliance shined. Dr. Van Til argued that if the non-Christian is epistemically self-conscious (of his spurious human autonomy), he would be confronted with the necessity of the Christian presupposition, namely, only God, as described in Scripture, is the ultimate authority and source of meaning and truth.

The Christian should not argue for Christianity merely by empiricism, rationalism or existentialism; rather the Christian argues for the truth of Christianity transcendentally. He argues that the Christian worldview is the transcendental precondition for human thought and experience. Thus the Christian worldview is necessary to bring unity and completeness to the divided perspectives of empiricism (situational), rationalism (normative) or existentialism (subjective). 

In modern vernacular, unless the Christian worldview is true one cannot prove anything. The argument is formulated loosely by confronting non-Christians to make sense of knowledge, rationality, induction, freedom and morals all the while assuming human autonomy. Dr. Van Til called this arguing from the impossibility of the contrary (much like in Geometry the argument from contradiction). Once the presupposition of human autonomy is logically demonstrated as impossible then the Christian presupposition is offered as the only alternative to make sense of knowledge, rationality, induction, freedom and morals.

Dr. Van Til emphasized that all men have presuppositions (i.e. beliefs used to interpret evidence). Thus no one is religiously neutral to be able to follow the evidence whereever it leads. A person is either committed to Christ or Satan. In the context of truth and meaning, one is either committed to autonomy (self-law) or theonomy (God’s-law). The Christian proves his presupposition transcendentally.   He argues from the impossibility of the contrary (i.e. unless the Christian worldview is true one cannot prove anything).

Van Til was not opposed to reason. He viewed reason as a tool of God. Van Till understood reason as derivative from God. God, who is essentially and originally rational, created man rational after His image. God gave truth and meaning to the actual world. He was the ultimate standard for meaning and truth, which included proper interpretation of the actual state of affairs. However, after the fall, man exchanged the creator for the creature and became vain in his reasoning. Man placed himself on the throne of God; he claimed the right to be essentially and originally rational.  Man asserted his reasoning as the measure/judge of all things (including God and the Bible). In effect, fallen man asserted his reasoning alone was the ontic and epistemic foundation for knowledge, rationality, induction, freedom and morals. Fallen man sees these things as human constructs with man at its source. Van Til turned this kind of reasoning on its head by arguing for a Copernican revolution in apologetics we now call covenantal or presuppositional apologetics.   

Van Til was concerned to rightly put human reason in its proper place under God’s rationality, authority, control, presence and power. Such a task is accomplished when we argue transcendentally.

Dr. John Frame rightly shatters the criticism that presuppositionalism merely argues in a circle. First, Frame points out the logical order of a Biblical epistemology can be conceived as linear (e.g. God’s rationality ->; human faith -->; human reasoning). In God’s rational providence, He produces human faith that governs human reasoning. All three of these components are inseparable. One cannot reason without faith (in reason); and one cannot justify either faith or reason without God.

Synthesis

Scholars (e.g. Carnell, Reymond, Nash, Frame) have examined their apologetical contributions and  identify weaknesses and strengths to provide a synthesis of the best their systems offered.  






















          

Fristianity Refuted?

An interesting article defending the sufficiency and necessity of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence.

Check it out HERE

\

Also check out Choosing Hats discussion on the subject HERE  

Biblical Apologetics

Here is a clear presentation of Biblical Apologetics by Jason Lisle.

Check it out HERE

As Jason illustrates, the necessary foundation for logic, science and morality is the Christian worldview. The unbeliever doesn't have this foundation, thus he is left with beliefs that he cannot account for given his worldview.

The unbeliever is not forthright in his assertions against the Christian worldview since he must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to even affirm or deny Christianity.

The issue is not about evidence. The believer and unbeliever has the same evidence. The issue is how one should interpret the evidence. By what set of presuppositions or world view ought we to interpret the evidence? By the Christian worldview that lays the necessary foundation for knowledge, science, logic, and morality. 

John Frame and Presuppositional Apologetics

Dr. James Anderson has written a wonderful exposition of John Frame's thought; but more importantly, he gives us a practical example of how to apply presuppositional apologetics. Here  Start at page 451 to see presuppositionalism applied to naturalism.

Meta-apologetics and Apologetics

I must say Steve Hays has done it again! He has written a post that is true and most thought provoking about debate within presuppositional apologetics Here. Many presuppositional apologists focus too much arguing for the presuppositional method and little time explaining its application. The serious problem is that those presuppositionalists that actually apply the method often get criticized by those that want to focus strictly on the purity of the method. Hays makes it clear this is how apologetics becomes fruitless. Check out his post!  

A Good Introduction to Propositions

Here is a old but good introduction to the nature of propositions. Here


It is written by Brian Bosse who is know for his thought provoking critique of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. Here

I still think he is wrong in this critique but I figured I'd post a link since it is a good contribution to seek to better defend the faith.

Presuppositions, Epistemology, and Atheism

Whenever I had questions I would email James Anderson for help. I figured many readers would benefit from my questions and Dr. Anderson's responses.

My first email:

James Anderson,

You are perhaps busy, but could you help answer a question concerning Presuppositional Epistemology. I have been debating some local Atheists in my area. I presented a formulation of the transcendental argument in regards to induction. This led to a discussion on epistemic justification. One of the atheists claimed that knowledge is circular and thus it is perfectly justified to make inductive inferences from experience. He continued to argue that in the case of the reliability of the five senses, they are established as such based on experience. Eventually the discussion centered on the five senses and Christian epistemology. I think this atheist must of read Vincent Cheung's article "The Fatal Maneuver" because his argumentation made me feel like I had to choose between Revelation or sensation. The atheist argued that Christians must presuppose the reliability of their five senses in order to read the Bible, and then they are able to argue from the scriptures that God is the precondition for the reliability of the senses, induction, knowledge or human experience in general. The atheist claimed  that this leaves Christians in two circles of justification. The Christian presupposes the reliability of the 5 senses and justifies this fact by Scripture, but the reading of Scripture is justified by the reliability of the 5 senses. The atheist claimed that Christians are guilty of circular reasoning  just as much as atheists are, the difference is that atheists just stick with one circle for justification, i.e. atheists just assume that the reliability of the senses or induction is justified by experience. The atheist concluded by saying that both atheists and Christians are no better off for accounting for the reliability of the senses or induction.  So my question is as a Presuppositionalist how should I respond to this claim that Christian's must establish the reliability of the senses before one can appeal to the scriptures, which is only accessible by the senses?

Dr. Anderson's reply:

What exactly does he [the atheist] mean by "knowledge is circular"?  If he means

something like the following...

1. We can justify P on the basis of Q .

2. We can justify Q on the basis of P.

...then I honestly don't know of any contemporary epistemologist who would support that idea.  For that's almost a textbook case of a vicious epistemic circularity.  Hume famously observed that justifying induction on the basis of experience is question-begging and I'm not aware of any epistemologist today who would try to justify induction empirically.  Does your atheist friend know of one? And he can't see that this is viciously circular?  One can establish X empirically only if one's senses are reliable; hence it begs the very point in question to try to establish empirically the reliability of one's senses. There's no vicious circularity here, for two reasons: (1) Christian theology holds that the existence of God can be known *a priori* via natural revelation (Calvin's "sensus divinitatis"); (2) the Christian isn't claiming that we can justify belief in the reliability of the senses by appealing to belief in God or to belief in the Bible.

The atheist completely misses the point here.  Everyone in the debate takes for granted that our senses are reliable and that we're justified in believing them to be reliable.  The real question is: Which worldview, theism or naturalism, can *account* for the reliability of our sense (and also our *a priori* knowledge that they are reliable)?

The same goes for induction.  Everyone (or nearly everyone!) in the debate takes for granted that inductive reasoning is generally reliable.  The real question is: Which worldview, theism or naturalism, can *account* for the general reliability of inductive reasoning?  In particular, which worldview can account for the inductive principle, i.e., the uniformity of nature in time and space? Theism can readily account for (a) the uniformity of nature and (b) our justified *a priori* belief in the uniformity of nature. Naturalism, not so much! No, this is confused.  The Christian doesn't justify the reliability of the senses by appealing to Scripture.  Rather, the Christian argues that the *biblical worldview* (i.e., the worldview reflected in Scripture) can account for the reliability of the sense whereas the *naturalist worldview* cannot.  That is to say, the Christian can offer a ready explanation for the reliability of his senses in terms of his worldview, whereas the atheist cannot do so.  To put the point another way: if the biblical worldview is true then the assumption that our senses are reliable is most likely justified, whereas if the naturalist worldview is true then that assumption is most likely not justified.

Again, the relevant question isn't "How do we prove that our sense are reliable?" but rather "Given that our senses are reliable, which worldview can best account for that fact?"You respond by pointing out that this is a red herring: neither the Christian nor the atheist needs to establish the reliability of the senses. That is a given in the debate.  What's at issue is which worldview (i.e., which view about the basic nature of reality, the origin of the universe, the origin and nature of human beings, the origin and nature of the human mind, etc.) can best *account* for the reliability of the senses?

Mulvihill's Lecture on TAG

Joe Mulvihill gave a lecture on the Transcendental Argument for God's existence Here.

I wish to comment on Mulvihill’s lecture. First, Mulvihill, by his articulation of the Transcendental Argument for God’s existence (TAG), seems to mistake Cornelius Van Til for Gordan Clark and/or Edward John Carnell. Since he wrongly claims TAG is properly understood as a reductio or abductive argument. Despite what Mulvihill may think, Van Til in fact taught that TAG is an argument for the impossible of the contrary. It is an indirect argument that demonstrates Christianity is true by presupposing its contradiction, (tokens of the same type) Non-Christianity. Non-Christianity is shown to be impossible, and therefore, it proves the contrary, namely, Christianity is true. “In other words, the structure of the argument is a disjunctive syllogism. Either A or ~A,~~A, therefore, A.”[1]

Mulvihill as a side comment says Van Til might not even be rightly considered a philosopher. Mulvihill seems to follow the footsteps of his colleague William Lane Craig to take such a stance about Van Til. The trouble is both man show their ignorance of Van til; if only they would have bothered to look at Van Til’s dissertation on Hegel’s Absolute, they would not make such inaccurate claims.

Mulvihill’s criticisms of TAG can be summarized as follows:

1. It is an indirect argument.
2. It is complex.
3. It is not unique.

Certainly TAG is indirect but it does not exclude giving positive answers directly. The main concern with TAG is to uphold biblical authority. Man cannot have a positive argument if man thinks it gives him the right to judge God.

TAG can be formulated in different ways both for the academic and student. So it can be simple or complex. To illustrate watch this simple use of TAG by Sye Ten Bruggencate.

  

         

TAG is unique; the problem lies with a misunderstanding of the structure of TAG. Michael Butler's comments would be helpful here. Butler explains,  

"But Bahnsen makes the further point is that this criticism misses the thrust of TAG altogether.  TAG argues for the impossibility of the contrary (the non-Christian worldview) and not the impossibility of an infinite number of possible worldviews.  TAG does not establish the necessity of Christianity by inductively refuting each and every possible non-Christian worldview (as finite proponents of TAG, this is an impossible task), but rather contends that the contrary of Christianity (any view that denies the Christian view of God) is shown to be impossible.  And if the negation of Christianity is false, Christianity is proved true.  In other words, the structure of the argument is a disjunctive syllogism.  Either A or -A, -- A, therefore, A.

At this point the clever opponent will simply deny the first premise.  He will contend that it should not be construed as a disjunction of a contradiction, but a simple disjunction.  The argument should thus be restated along the following lines: A or B, -B, therefore, A.  And once this move is made he will then contend that while the argument is valid, the first premise involves a false dilemma.  That is, he will grant that given A or B and the negation of B, A does indeed follow, but nevertheless maintain that the argument is unsound because the first premise (A or B) is not true.  The reason being that there are more possibilities than just A and B.  Given a true first premise, A or B or C or D ... n, the negation of B merely entails that A along with the disjunction of other propositions besides B (C, D,...n) follows.

In order for this to be successful, it is incumbent upon the opponent of TAG to defend two claims.  First, he must defend the contention that the original first premise is not the disjunction of a contradiction and, second, he must show that there are other possible disjuncts besides B (what we can call the view that is opposed to the Christian worldview)."[3]

I strongly suggest Mulvihill and anyone interested in learning a correct presentation of the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG) to listen to Dr. Greg Bahnsen's lectures Here and Michael Butler (Bahnsen's former student) Here 

[1] Butler, Michael. The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen (Covenant Media Press: Nacogdoches, 2002) p.85. www.butler-harris.org/tag/

[2] Butler, Michael. ;www.butler-harris.org/tag/;

Biblical Apologetics

Here is an excellent sketch on Presuppositional apologetics by Sye Ten Burggencate.

Some helpful material I compiled from Van Til, Bahnsen, Anderson, Lisle, and Cheung.

5 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to


make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;


yet do it with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15






As this verse says "make a defense" that comes from the Geek ἀπολογία which


means to give an argument or reasoned response. Thus as Christians we are to be


ready to give an argument for our faith with Christ at the center of it. Our


argument is to honor Christ's lordship and our actions are to exemplify


likeness of Christ. We are to be gentle and respectful to all who ask of us a


justification of our faith.






"2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach


all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's


mystery, which is Christ,


3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col 2:2-3






"7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and


instruction." Proverbs 1:7






"1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do


abominable deeds, there is none who does good. " Psalm 14:1






Biblical Guidelines

"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 Chris- tian 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 Christian


principle of the 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. Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of "chance."


5. That we argue, therefore, by "presupposition." 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, comes


about when the Holy Spirit, in the presence of inescapably clear evidence, opens


their eyes so that they see things as they 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 under- stand 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. This "reminding" process provides


a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign grace may grant the


non-Christian repentance so that he may know him who is life eternal. "[1]





An easy apologetics outline: AIM

A- Arbitrariness=Expose the unbelievers assertions that have no justification.

I- Inconsistencies= Expose any inconsistencies in what the unbeliever says.

M- Mistaken foundations for knowledge. One must demonstrate only the Christian
worldview can provide the necessary foundations or presuppositions for knowledge. Only from the Christian worldview can one claim to have knowledge (i.e. justified true beliefs) for two reasons:(1) The absolute triune God has
revealed truth to us in His Word and continues to illuminate our minds by His Spirit (2) Scripture tells us all mankind are the image bearers of God and hence possess intellects and wills that can reliably acquire knowledge.[2] The goal is to show the unbeliever must assume the Christian viewpoint to know
anything with certainty. If any unbeliever claims to have knowledge of anything, he can never be certain since one must either be God or know God to have knowledge of anything. That is because one must be everywhere at once, be outside of time and control everything in order to know something. Since all facts are related to each other. And in order for one to know a fact in its proper context one must know them all.









   Unbelievers either reason in a circle putting human reason or experience on the


throne as ruler and ultimate standard of their knowledge. We must show only God


and His Word can rightly be the ultimate standard and authority. Only God can


give us knowledge. Christians, too, argue in a circle. But our circle from God’s


Word provides the necessary foundations/assumptions for knowledge. Moreover, the


circle is rational since the authority appealed to as ultimate is in fact


Ultimate, namely God. Unbelievers are forced into skepticism and/or fideism.[3]





  If a Christian gets stumped he can always resort to these questions that can


be phrased in different forms.



“1. Why? A question that demands reasons for whatever is asserted by the


unbeliever so the mistaken foundation can be exposed.


2. So? This question seeks to counter irrelevant things the unbeliever asserts.


3. Really? The question exposes the fact Christianity is the truth and the


unbeliever ought to reexamine his view. But most of all it gives Christians


opportunity to show the unbeliever the necessity of presupposing the Christian


worldview in order to have knowledge.”[4]








   [1] Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith, 3rd ed. rev. (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1967), pp.298-99.




[2] I made my own acronym from Jason Lisle. The Ultimate Proof Of Creation. (Green Forest: Master Books, 2009),pp.84-95.




[3] James Anderson via email




[4] Vincent Cheung. Students in the Real World. http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/invinfaith.pdf p.76.