Cornelius Van Til is professor of Apologetics at Westminster
Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.
In the first article of this series the contention was made that
one who holds to the Reformed Faith in theology should, to be consistent,
also hold to a Reformed method in Apologetics. In practice this
means that we should try to win Mr. Black, the non-Christian, to
an acceptance of Christianity as it is to be identified with the
Reformed Faith, which is Christianity come to its own. We should
not try to win men to acceptance first of Christianity in general
and afterwards to "the five points of Calvinism." The transition
from non-Christianity or paganism to the Reformed Faith as full-fledged
Christianity must be made in one transaction.
To see clearly what is meant think of a dentist. You go to him
with a "bad tooth". Does he take care of your tooth in two operations?
To be sure, you may have to come back to have him finish the job.
But it is one job he is doing. He takes all the decayed matter out
before he fills the cavity. Well, Mr. Black is the man with the
toothache, and you, as a Reformed Christian, are the dentist. Would
you first convert him to Evangelicalism and then to the Reformed
Faith? Then you would be like a dentist who would today take half
the decayed matter out and fill the cavity, and tomorrow or next
week take out the rest of the decayed matter and fill the cavity
again. Or, rather, you would be like the dentist who takes part
of the decayed matter out, fills the cavity, and then lets the patient
go until a long time later he returns complaining again of a toothache.
Indeed, it is no fun to have the dentist drill deep into your
tooth. And it is the last and deepest drilling that hurts most.
So Mr. Black is likely to feel more at home in the office of the
"evangelical" dentist than in the office of the "Reformed" dentist.
Will the latter have any customers? He is likely to fear that he
will not. He is ever tempted, therefore, to advertise that he is
cooperating with all good "conservatives" in all good
dentistry. but that he has a specialty which it would be very nice
for people to see him about.
The X-Ray Machine
Let us now ask by what means we may diagnose Mr. Black. For that
purpose we use the X-ray machine. Whence do you know your misery?
Out of the law, the revealed will of God, answers the Reformed Christian.
Let us call him Mr. White. It is by means of the Bible, not by personal
experience, that he turns the light on himself, as well as on Mr.
Black. He does not appeal to "experience" or to "reason" or to "history"
or to anything else as his source of information in the way that
he appeals to the Bible. He may appeal to experience, but his appeal
will be to experience as seen in the light of the Bible. So he may
appeal to reason or to history, but, again, only as they are to
be seen in the light of the Bible. He does not even look for corroboration
for the teachings of Scripture from experience, reason or history
except insofar as these are themselves first seen in the light of
the Bible. For him the Bible, and therefore the God of the Bible,
is like the sun from which the light that is given by oil lamps,
gas lamps and electrical light is derived.
Quite different is the attitude of the "evangelical" or "conservative".
Let us call him Mr. Grey. Mr. Grey uses the Bible, experience, reason
or logic as equally independent sources of information about his
own and therefore about Mr. Black's predicament. I do not say that
for Mr. Grey the Bible, experience and reason are equally important.
Indeed they are not. He knows that the Bible is by far the most
important. But he none the less constantly appeals to "the facts
of experience" and to "logic" without first dealing with the very
idea of fact and with the idea of logic in terms of the Scripture.
The difference is basic. When Mr. White diagnoses Mr. Black's
case he takes as his X-ray machine the Bible only. When Mr. Grey
diagnoses Mr. Black's case he first takes the X-ray machine of experience,
then the Xray machine of logic, and finally his biggest X-ray machine,
the Bible. In fact, he may take these in any order. Each of them
is an independent source of information for him.
Mr. Grey Analyzes Mr. Black
Let us first look briefly at a typical sample of procedure generally
followed in conservative or evangelical circles today. Let us, in
other words, note how Mr. Grey proceeds with an analysis of Mr.
Black. And let us at the same time see how Mr. Grey would win Mr.
Black to an acceptance of Christianity. We take for this purpose
a series of articles which appeared in the January, February and March, 1950, issues
of Moody Monthly. published by the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.
Edward John Carnell, Ph. D., author of An Introduction to Christian
Apologetics and professor of Apologetics at Fuller Theological Seminary,
Pasadena, California, wrote this series. Carnell's writings are
among the best that appear in evangelical circles. In fact, in his
book Carnell frequently argues as we would expect a Reformed apologist
to argue. By and large, however, he represents the evangelical rather
than the Reformed method in Apologetics.
When Mr. Carnell instructs his readers "How Every Christian
Can Defend His Faith", he first appeals to facts and to logic as
independent sources of information about the truth of Christianity.
Of course, he must bring in the Bible even at this point. But the
Bible is brought in only as a book of information about the fact
of what has historically been called Christianity. It is not from
the beginning brought in as God's Word. It must be shown to Mr.
Black to be the Word of God by means of "facts" and "logic".
Carnell would thus avoid at all costs the charge of reasoning in
a circle. He does not want Mr. Black to point the finger at him
and say:
"You prove that the Bible is true by an appeal to the Bible
itself. That is circular reasoning. How can any person with any
respect for logic accept such a method of proof?"
Carnell would escape such a charge by showing that the facts
of experience, such as all men recognize, and logic, such as all
men must use, point to the truth of Scripture. This is what he says:
"if you are of a philosophic turn, you can point to the remarkable
way in which Christianity fits in with the moral sense inherent
in every human being, or the influence of Christ on our ethics,
customs, literature, art and music. Finally, you can draw upon your
own experience in speaking of the reality of answered prayer and
the witness of the Spirit in your own heart.. .If the person is
impressed with this evidence, turn at once to the gospel. Read crucial
passages and permit the Spirit to work on the inner recesses of
the heart. Remember that apologetics is merely a preparation. After
the ground has been broken, proceed immediately with sowing and
watering" (Moody Monthly, January, 1950, p. 313).
It is assumed in this argument that Mr. Black agrees with the
"evangelical". Mr. Grey, on the character of the ‘moral
sense" of man. This may be true, but then it is true because Mr.
Grey has himself not taken his information about the moral sense
of man exclusively from Scripture. If with Mr. White he had taken his conception of the
moral nature of man from the Bible, then he would hold that Mr.
Black, as totally depraved will, of course, misinterpret his own
moral nature. True, Christianity is in accord with the moral nature
of man. But this is so only because the moral nature of man is first
in accord with what the Bible says it is, that is, originally created
perfect, but now wholly corrupted in its desires through the fall
of man.
The Boy or the Rock
If you are reasoning with a naturalist. Carnell advises his readers,
ask him why when a child throws a rock through his window, he chases
the child and not the rock. Presumably even a naturalist knows that
the child, not the rock, is free and therefore responsible.
"A bottle of water cannot ought; it must. When once the
free spirit of man is proved, the moral argument the existence of
a God who imposes moral obligations -- can form the bridge from man
to God" (Idem, p. 343).
Here the fundamental difference between Mr. Grey's and Mr. White's
approach to Mr. Black appears. The difference lies in the different
notions of the free will of man. Or, it may be said, the difference
is with respect to the nature of man as such. Mr. White would define
man, and therefore his freedom, in terms of Scripture alone. He
would therefore begin with the fact that man is the creature of
God. And this implies that man's freedom is a derivative freedom.
It is a freedom that is not and can not be wholly ultimate, that
is, self-dependent. Mr. White knows that Mr. Black would not agree
with him in this analysis of man and of his freedom. He knows that
Mr. Black would not agree with him on this any more than he would
agree on the biblical idea of total depravity.
Mr. Grey, on the other hand, must at all costs have "a point
of contact" in the system of thought of Mr. Black, who is typical
of the natural man. Just as Mr. Grey is afraid of being charged
with circular reasoning, so he is also afraid of being charged with
talking about something that is "outside of experience". And so
he is driven to talk in general about the "free spirit of man".
Of course, Mr. Black need have no objections from his point of view
in allowing for the "free spirit of man". That is at bottom
what he holds even when he is a naturalist. His whole position is
based upon the idea of man as a free spirit, that is, a spirit that
is not subject to the law of his Creator God. And Carnell does not
distinguish between the biblical doctrine of freedom, as based upon and involved in the fact of
man's creation, and the doctrine of freedom, in the sense of autonomy,
which makes man a law unto himself.
Of course, Mr. Black will be greatly impressed with such an argument
as Mr. Grey has presented to him for the truth of Christianity.
In fact, if Christianity is thus shown to be in accord with the
moral nature of man, as Mr. Black himself sees that moral nature,
then Mr. Black does not need to be converted at all to accept Christianity.
He only needs to accept something additional to what he has always
believed. He has been shown how nice it would be to have a second
story built on top of the house which he has already built according
to his own plans.
To be sure, the evangelical intends no such thing. Least of all
does Carnell intend such a thing. But why then does not the "Evangelical"
see that by presenting the non-Christian with evangelicalism rather
than with the Reformed Faith he must compromise the Christian religion?
And why does he not also see that in doing what he does the non-Christian
is not really challenged either by fact or by logic? For facts and
logic which are not themselves first seen in the light of Christianity
have, in the nature of the case, no power in them to challenge the
unbeliever to change his position. Facts and logic, not based upon
the creation doctrine and not placed in the context of the doctrine
of God's all-embracing Providence, are without relation to one
another and therefore wholly meaningless.
It is this fact which must be shown to Mr. Black. The folly of
holding to any view of life except that which is frankly based upon
the Bible as the absolute authority for man must be pointed out
to him. Only then are we doing what Paul did when he said: ‘Where
is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this
world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world'?" (ICo.
1:20).
Mr. White Analyzes Mr. Black
As a Reformed Christian Mr. White therefore cannot cooperate
with Mr. Grey in his analysis of Mr. Black. This fact may appear
more clearly if we turn to see how Mr. Black appears when he is
analyzed by Mr. White in terms of the Bible alone.
Now, according to Mr. White's analysis, Mr. Black is not a murderer.
He is not necessarily a drunkard or a dope addict. He lives in one
of the suburbs. He is every whit a gentleman. He gives to the Red
Cross and to the Red Feather campaigns. He was a boy scout; he is a member
of a lodge; he is very much civic minded; now and then his name
is mentioned in the papers as an asset to the community. But we
know that he is spiritually dead. He is filled with the spirit of
error. Perhaps he is a member of a "fine church" in the community,
but nevertheless he is one of a "people that do err in their heart"
(Psa. 95:10). He lives in a stupor (Rom. 11: 8). To him the wisdom
of God is foolishness. The truth about God, and about himself in
relation to God, is obnoxious to him. He does not want to hear of
it. He seeks to close eyes and ears to those who give witness of
the truth. He is, in short, utterly self-deceived.
Actually. Mr. Black is certain that he looks at life in the only
proper way. Even if he has doubts as to the truth of what he believes,
he does not see how any sensible or rational man could believe or
do otherwise. If he has doubts it is because no one can be fully
sure of himself. If he has fears it is because fear is to be expected
in the hazardous situation in which modem man lives. If he sees
men's minds break down he thinks this is to be expected under current
conditions of stress and strain. If he sees grown men act like children
he says that they, after all, were once children; if he sees them
act like beasts he says that they were once beasts. Everything,
including the "abnormal" is to him ‘normal".
In all this Mr. Black has obviously taken for granted that what
the Bible says about the world and himself is not true. He has taken
this for granted. He may never have argued the point. He has cemented
yellow spectacles to his own eyes. He cannot remove them because
he will not remove them. He is blind and loves to be blind.
Do not think that Mr. Black has an easy time of it. He is the
man who always "kicks against the pricks." His conscience troubles
him all the time. Deep down in his heart he knows that what the
Bible says about him and about the world is true. Even if he has
never heard of the Bible he knows that he is a creature of God and
that he has broken the law of God (Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:14, 15). When
the prodigal son left his father's house he could not immediately
efface from his memory the look and the voice of his father. How
that look and that voice came back to him when he was at the swine
trough! How hard he had tried to live as though the money with which
he so freely entertained his "friends" had not come from his father!
When asked where he came from he would answer that he came "from
the other side". He did not want to be reminded of his past. Yet
he could not forget it. It required a constant act of suppression to forget
the past. But that very act of suppression itself keeps alive the
memory of the past.
So also with Mr. Black. He daily changes the truth of God into
a lie. He daily worships and serves the creature more than the Creator.
He daily holds the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). But what
a time he has with himself! He may try to sear his conscience as
with a hot iron. He may seek to escape the influence of all those
who witness to the truth. But he can never escape himself as witness-bearer
to the truth.
His conscience keeps telling him:
"Mr. Black, you are a fugitive from justice. You have run
away from home, from your father's bountiful love. You are an ingrate,
a sneak, a rascal! You shall not escape meeting justice at last.
The father still feeds you. Yet you despise the riches of his goodness
and forbearance and longsuffering; not recognizing that the goodness
of God is calculated to lead you to repentance (Rom. 2: 4). Why
do you kick against the pricks? Why do you stifle the voice of your
conscience? Why do you use the wonderful intellect that God has
given you as a tool for the suppression of the voice of God which
speaks to you through yourself and through your environment? Why
do you build your house on sand instead of on rock? Can you be sure
that no storm is ever coming? Are you omniscient? Are you omnipotent?
You say that nobody knows whether God exists or whether Christianity
is true. You say that nobody knows this because man is finite. Yet
you assume that God cannot exist and that Christianity cannot be
true. You assume that no judgment will ever come. You must be omniscient
to know that. And yet you have just said that all man declares about
"the beyond" must be based upon his brief span of existence in
this world of time and chance. How, then, if you have taken for
granted that chance is one of the basic ingredients of all human
experience, can you at tile same time say what can or cannot be
in all time to come? You certainly have made a fool of yourself,
Mr. Black,"
says Mr. Black to himself.
"You reject the claims of truth which you know to be the truth,
and you do that in terms of the lie which really you know to be the lie."
It is not always that Mr. Black is thus aware of the fact that
he lives like the prodigal who would eat of the things the swine
did eat, but who knows he cannot because he is a human being. He
is not always thus aware of his folly -- in part at least, because
of the failure of evangelicals, and particularly because of the
failure of Reformed Christians to stir him up to a realization of his folly. The evangelical does not want to
stir him up thus. It is in the nature of his own theology not to
stir him up to a realization of this basic depth of folly. But the
Reformed Christian should, on his basis, want to stir up Mr. Black
to an appreciation of the folly of his ways.
However, when the Reformed Christian, Mr. White, is to any extent
aware of the richness of his own position and actually has the courage
to challenge Mr. Black by presenting to him the picture of himself
as taken through the X-ray machine called the Bible, he faces the
charge of "circular reasoning" and of finding no "point of contact"
with experience. And he will also be subject to the criticism of
the evangelical for speaking as if Christianity were irrational
and for failing to reach the man in the street.
Thus we seem to be in a bad predicament. There is a basic difference
of policy between Mr. White and Mr. Grey as to how to deal with
Mr. Black. Mr. Grey thinks that Mr. Black is not really such a bad
fellow. It is possible, he thinks to live with Mr. Black in the
same world. And he is pretty strong. So it is best to make a compromise
peace with him. That seems to be the way of the wise and practical
politician. On the other hand, Mr. White thinks that it is impossible
permanently to live in the same world with Mr. Black. Mr. Black,
he says, must therefore be placed before the requirement of absolute
and unconditional surrender. And surely it would be out of the question
for Mr. White first to make a compromise peace with Mr. Black and
then, after all, to require unconditional surrender! But what then
about this charge of circular reasoning and about this charge of
having no point of contact with the unbeliever?
__________
__________
Indeed, a Christian man ought to be so disposed and prepared,
as to reflect what he has to do with God every moment of his life.
Thus, as he will measure all his actions by his will and determination,
so he will refer the whole bias of his mind religiously to him.
-- John Calvin
