Interacting with Ligonier’s “Christianity and Van Tillianism” (Part 1)

Ligonier, beginning with Dr. R.C. Sproul, has been in an ongoing dialogue with Presuppositional Apologetics through interaction with both Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen. One of the best and earliest encounters was the 1977 debate between Sproul and Bahnsen over apologetic method. If you have not heard it, purchase it from Covenant Media Foundation immediately! To Sproul’s credit, he clearly went into the debate with an irenic spirit to try and smooth over the differences. He even stated at one point that the whole thing could be, “…a tempest in a teapot”. Through the back-n-forth with Sproul and Bahnsen though, it was obvious that there are significant differences, and in a telling moment, Sproul stated the focus and heart of his ministry (italics have been added for emphasis):

R.C. Sproul’s Opening Statement

First of all, what I am very much interested in and deeply concerned about is a complete reconstruction of natural theology in the 20^th century. That is what I am all about, trying to call for a reconstruction of natural theology, and with that, what I believe to be a reconstruction of classical Calvinistic apologetics. Why do I have that concern?These are few of the reasons why I’m concerned for reconstruction of natural theology:

1)      I am very much concerned about the problem of the loss of natural law as a cohesive force for the well being of man in his society. If you are aware of jurisprudence, and questions of political matters in our country today, you are aware certainly that the whole idea of natural law as a ground basis or foundation for legislation is one that is not taken very seriously at all in the higher courts or in the academic institutions of jurisprudence. I think there is a direct correlation between the loss of the natural law concept in jurisprudence with the loss of natural theology in the realm of theology and metaphysics. Now if we can talk about the implications of that more later and some of the historical developments of it.. that I think the practical ramifications of the loss of the natural law system in this country are extremely destructive. 

2)      Second of all, I am deeply concerned about the loss of the intellectual credibility of Christianity. I believe that we are living in the most anti-intellectual age in the history of western civilization, not the most anti-academic, not the most anti-technological, but anti-intellect: anti-intellectual in the sense that we have lost confidence in the ability of the mind to be used as a tool for testing and achieving truth. 

3)      Third, I am deeply concerned about the loss of Christian influence on the general culture of our society. This, if I can speak in Calvinistic terms, is a concern of common grace, not a concern so much for evangelism or winning souls, but it is a concern of our responsibility for the general welfare of mankind and also, negatively stated, as a restraint of evil in this world. And I think that we have seen very evidently the loss of the church as a powerful influence in the shaping of our culture.

4)      Fourth, I am concerned about the loss of, what I would call, the purity of classical and historical Calvinism with respect to the relationship of faith and reason and the intrusion, of what I consider to be, a neo-orthodox methodology into Calvinism.

5)      Fifth, and this is perhaps, #5 and #6 are probably my two greatest concerns about this whole question of methodology. #5 is the concern of the problem of the intimidation of Christians in our culture. I know from being a college student and a college professor and seminary professor that I find that students in this day and age have been very much intimidated by the skeptical assault of the intellectual credibility of their faith, and though it may not rob them of their own salvation, we’re Calvinists, we don’t think that could happen, but nevertheless, it makes them less active, less aggressive, less bold in the confrontation that they are called to have with the world because they feel that the tools of intelligence, of intellect, of sense perception, have been negotiated and granted as the province of the pagan. 

6)      And finally, I am deeply concerned about a methodology that might lead us into a Christian ghetto, where a Christian community is left with conversation with itself, we’re living in a secular society that is assigned to us a reservation, where we can live in peace, as long as we understand the religion and theology is a matter of faith and is divorced and separated from questions of science and questions of rationality and a whole field of empirical investigation, we’re allowed to have the province of faith, if we be good boys and girls and stay over on the reservation and mind our own business, they’ll leave us alone and that way we can become less and less and less as a driving force in the changing and shaping of this world. I am very much afraid of an apologetic that would lead us to isolationism, rather than direct confrontation with the world on its own terms. 

A Small Detour to Think About “Natural Theology”

Clearly, Dr. Sproul’s desire to reconstruct Natural Theology weighs heavy in his mind since he mentions that right out of the gate. What is Natural Theology? Dr. Morey writes:

Natural Theology

Since theology is a humanistic enterprise and begins and ends with man, what is “Natural Theology?” Only a vague definition is possible. Prof. William P. Aston defines Natural Theology as, “the enterprise of providing support for religious beliefs by starting from premises that neither are nor presuppose any religious beliefs.”

How can you provide support for religious ideas if you do not start with those ideas in mind? T. H. L. Parker in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, defined it as:

Theologia naturalius as it is now understood is a theology constructed irrespective of revelation. In its pure form it has never existed within the church, which is clearly committed to revelation in some degree.

Parker acknowledges that Natural Theology changes in meaning and he can only take a “snapshot definition” of what it is at the moment he is writing about it. He is right on target. William Hordern explained it this way,

Ever since Thomas Aquinas there has been a distinction between natural and revealed theology. Natural theology means man’s philosophical study of religious questions. Natural theology is all that man can learn about God, immortality, and such questions by the use of reason alone. It appeals to facts and theories that are available to any rational man. It can be summed up quickly by saying that natural theology represents man’s search for God; revealed theology represents God’s search for man.

Hordern brings perhaps the best of the definitions, and properly defines Natural Theology by contrasting it to Revealed Theology. Natural Theology is what man says, and Revealed Theology is what God says.

Morey, Robert A. The Bible, Natural Theology, and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise? Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2010.

So, there is consistency with Sproul’s views of Natural Theology, Natural Law, and Apologetics – they all begin with “unaided” reason (I put “unaided” in quotes because Presuppositional Apologetics would argue that is not the true state of the situation). I have never seen the value of this project. Trying to build consensus with others without first beginning with revelation is hopeless and pointless. As our society gets further and further away from from a Christian worldview, the entire enterprise exponentially becomes more impossible. Further, as you think about Christ’s dialogue with the woman at the well and the Pharisees/Sadducees, you never see him reasoning to Scripture. Never. He always assumes the truthfulness and validity of God’s word and begins there. I also have to add the mind-bending point that from a Presuppositional Apologetics point of view, Evidential Apologists rely on Scripture anyway – even if they can’t see that is what they are doing – because, if Christianity isn’t true, nothing would make sense and you couldn’t prove anything at all.

Greg Bahnsen’s Opening Statement

Contrast Sproul’s opening statement with Bahnsen’s opening statement (following) and you see that Greg is immediately pointing out serious deficiencies in the Evidential Apologetics camp:

First thing that apologetics is not

First, two things apologetics is not. Apologetics is not mere persuasion. Much of the popular literature in the area of theistic and anti-theistic apologetics consists of highly polemical and emotional efforts at converting others. And to be sure it is often our duty to seek to convince others of our own position.Sadly, however, these efforts too frequently take a form that substitutes psychological persuasion for careful and fair argumentation. Both believers and unbelievers are guilty of this, at least in my estimation.

And it is a sad fact of life that logically poor arguments are often psychologically effective in convincing people of the truth of a position. Conversely, good arguments can be psychologically ineffective. And we may consequently find ourselves confronted by a moral dilemma when we discover that certain bad arguments and glib slogans will be found more convincing by a larger audience than what are in fact really good arguments.

And when we, on top of this, judge the issue that is being disputed to be one of high importance in our lives, such as in the case of apologetics, we are especially tempted to put these bad arguments in the service of the truth. 

The Christian apologist ought to be the one person on earth who will resist this temptation. For we only dishonor the truth and ultimately dishonor the Lord of truth when we use fraudulent and suspicious forms of argument in promoting the truth. So the first quest of apologetics is not mere persuasion. We may persuade a lot of people to become Christians on the basis of very bad arguments. But our task as apologists is to find good arguments; one which will not be found out later to be fraudulent when somebody with greater intellectual talent comes along to investigate.

Second Thing It Is Not

Secondly, apologetics does not merely deal in probabilities. This is an important point. Apologetics is not merely persuasion. Secondly, apologetics is not merely dealing with probabilities. 

We are to have a reasoned defense of the conviction, the hope that is within us, according to 1 Peter 3. And basing our thinking on the apostolic word we can, according to Acts 2:36, know assuredly. In the Greek word, know without any doubt whatsoever, that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Indeed, the Gospel comes to us that we might, quote, “know the certainty of our Christian teaching” – Luke 1:4. The Gospel comes not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and full assurance – 1 Thessalonians 1:5. And the word there for “full assurance” … means full conviction, assurance, certainty, perfect faith not marred by any doubts whatsoever. The Bible speaks of our full assurance of understanding – Colossians 2:2; and our full assurance of hope in Hebrews 6:11. 

Abraham is called the father of the faithful and Paul says that he was not weak in faith but had full certainty with respect to God’s word – Romans 4:19 & 21. And thus Hebrews tells us to draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith – Hebrews 10:22. And then verse 23 goes on to exhort us to hold fast the confession of our hope unyieldingly in Christ. We surpass human probabilities. And we can have bold access and confident faith, Paul says, in Ephesians 3.

And so while the confidence of the godless is like a spider’s web, Job 8:14, in the fear of the Lord is strong confidence, Proverbs 14:26. And the reason Proverbs says that is that it begins by saying that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge – Proverbs 1:7. And we who put our confidence in Jehovah may, quote, “know the certainty of the words of truth” – Proverbs 22:17-21.

And thus, I maintain it is wrong to think that certainty in epistemological matters is limited to formal logic and mathematics. Certainty, full certainty, full confidence without doubt, without yielding, without qualification, pertains to the matters of the Christian faith.

John’s purpose in writing his first epistle was especially that his readers might have confident knowledge of their salvation. And therefore, our confession of faith teaches us that believers “may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace.” And it goes on to make very clear what the meaning is when it says this certainty is not a bare conjectural or probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope but is an infallible assurance of faith.

And so, apologetics is dealing with the hope that is in us; the full conviction, not probabilities – full assurance, full demonstration. By the way, talk of moral persuasion and moral certainty at this point is simply a cop out. For whatever that strange state of mind called moral assurance is supposed to be, it certainly cannot be compatible with mere rational probability. Moral assurance is to be based on the apprehended strength of the evidence. And as all philosophers who have spoken of this suspicious state of mind have said, it is to be proportioned to the certainty of the evidence itself.

So apologetics is not merely persuasion and it’s not merely dealing in probabilities. Well what is it? It won’t get us very far to say what’s not. I want to make very clear; we are not talking about how to persuade people. We’re talking about the grounds for Christian truth. And we’re talking about not “probably true” but “fully true”, “unyieldingly true”.

A Glimpse into the Upcoming Blog Posts

So, Natural Theology/Natural Law/Evidential Apologetics begins with unaided reason to arrive at persuasion and probabilities. Presuppositional Apologetics begins with God’s word to arrive at certainty. Are those compatible? No. The core starting points and core goals are incompatible.

From the time of the Sproul/Bahnsen debate until the present day, many articles, books, and statements have been made to keep the debate alive. As recent as 2015, at the Inerrancy Summit, R.C. made a number of critical comments regarding Presuppositional Apologetics. Ministries such as The Domain for Truth interacted with Dr. Sproul’s comments.

Most recently though, Dr. Keith Mathison of Ligonier, wrote an article for TableTalk – “Christianity and Van Tillianism“. The article raised a number of concerns that I thought deserve a response, and while there are many giants in the Presuppositional Apologetics camp, I am not aware of any responses. So, this is the first of many blog posts attempting to respond to some of the points made in the article. I wish one of the giants would have responded. I wish I had the time the response deserves. This will have to do though.

Why did I mention the debate between Sproul and Bahnsen? It was important to recall the opening comments from both debaters because although many decades have passed, you will clearly hear echoes of the issues in what Dr. Mathison wrote.