Apology & Methodology

Apology & Methodology 25 August 2009

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 2 ESTABLISHING OUR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ..................................................................................................... 2 IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM ....................................................................................................................................... 2 ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM ...................................................................................................................................... 3 ARGUING FROM OUR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY .................................................................................................. 4 USE OF SCRIPTURE .................................................................................................................................................. 4 JOHN CALVIN & REFORMED THEOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 4 ARGUING BY PRESUPPOSITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 4 TRANSCENDENTAL REASONING .................................................................................................................................. 5 IN SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 PRESUPPOSING OUR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN PRACTICE ............................................................................... 6 THE TREE OF REALITY .............................................................................................................................................. 6 EXTERNAL CRITIQUE: ARGUING WITH A FOOL NOT ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY ....................................................................... 6 INTERNAL CRITIQUE: ARGUING WITH A FOOL ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY. ............................................................................. 7 AN EXAMPLE ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 GENTLENESS & HUMILITY IN APOLOGETICS ..................................................................................................... 8 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................... 8

PAGE 1

Prepared by MKM DUBOISEE DE RICQUEBOURG

INTRODUCTION The importance of recognising presuppositions. How do we know what we know? Our Goal in Apologetics: Glorifying God.

ESTABLISHING OUR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM

1. It compromises God by only providing “possible” or “highly probable” proof for his existence instead of making his existence ontologically and rationally necessary. 2. It compromises the clarity, sufficiency and authority of God’s revelation. 3. It compromises mankind’s role as God’s image-bearers by encouraging autonomous reasoning instead of thinking God’s thoughts after him.

PAGE 2

Prepared by MKM DUBOISEE DE RICQUEBOURG

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

PAGE 3

Prepared by MKM DUBOISEE DE RICQUEBOURG

ARGUING FROM OUR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY USE OF SCRIPTURE 1. 1 Peter 3:15, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” 2. Romans 1:19-20, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” 3. 2 Corinthians 10:5, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,” 4. Proverbs 26:4-5, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

JOHN CALVIN & REFORMED THEOLOGY 1. “Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their colour, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste.” (Institutes I.VII.II) 2. “Thus the highest proof of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks in it.” (Institutes I.VII.IV) 3. “Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit.” (Institutes I.VII.V)

ARGUING BY PRESUPPOSITIONS Van Til says, “To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one’s method.” 1. Types of Ultimate Presuppositions: There are 2 types of ultimate presuppositions: God or autonomy. To ask the question, “Is there a God?” assumes autonomy, therefore the very asking of the question is the begging of the question in regards to the Christian God. "The non-Christian arguments regularly assume the point in dispute before they start. The questions are so framed as to exclude the Christian answer from the beginning." (Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation) 2. Myth of Neutrality: There are no brute facts. All facts are interpreted in the light of the subject’s presuppositions – hence the antithesis between believer and unbeliever. Therefore the apologist needs to challenge the unbeliever’s philosophy of facts before appealing to historical apologetics. 3. The role of the Holy Spirit: logic cannot bring about a change in someone’s presuppositions. Only God can. 4. Analogous knowledge: our knowledge is analogous to God’s knowledge, thus we think God’s thoughts after him. 5. Holistic approach: The apologist must argue for the Christian worldview as a whole not piecewise. 6. Borrowed capital: these are the presuppositions an unbeliever must have in practice in order to make sense of the world and their experience. In essence, a dialectic is produced: they must presuppose God in their thinking, and they choose not to presuppose God in their thinking (i.e. they suppress the truth). Van Til calls this the rational-irrational dialectic. The unbeliever can only know and state the truth by being inconsistent with their worldview. 7. Points of Contact: Communication is only possible by “points of contact” which refer to the fact that every man knows the creator by common grace. PAGE 4

Prepared by MKM DUBOISEE DE RICQUEBOURG

TRANSCENDENTAL REASONING To argue transcendentally is to argue indirectly, from the impossibility of the contrary: Similar to mathematical proof by contradiction. Assume the negation of the proposition and show the contradiction thereby proving the proposition.

"What modern people want to be made to understand is simply that all argument begins with an assumption; that is, with something that you do not doubt. You can, of course, if you like, doubt the assumption at the beginning of your argument, but in that case you are beginning a different argument with another assumption at the beginning of it. Every argument begins with an infallible dogma, and that infallible dogma can only be disputed by falling back on some other infallible dogma; you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first." - G.K. Chesterton, Philosophy for the Schoolroom

Van Til said, “A truly transcendental argument takes any fact of experience which it wishes to investigate, and tries to determine what the presuppositions of such a fact must be, in order to make it what it is.” John Frame says, “Immanuel Kant argued that the truth of mathematics and science cannot be proved by rational deduction (as Leibniz) or by sense experience alone (Hume), but rather by a “transcendental” argument that shows the conditions under which alone knowledge is possible. To deny this theory, Kant believed, is to deny the necessary conditions of knowledge while claiming to have knowledge, a self-refuting position.”

IN SUMMARY Van Til argues that we must presuppose the Christian Worldview in order to prove anything, including the Christian Worldview. Thus, “Anti-theism presupposes theism.” In this way Van Til provided a Copernican Revolution in reformed apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics has been wrongly accused of committing the fallacy of circular reasoning, i.e. it assumes the very thing it tries to prove. But there is a distinction between arguing in a vicious circle, and arguing according to the circularity which is essential for any worldview. A good question to ask which exposes this is, “How do you prove your ultimate authority?”. If you do not assume it in your argument, you show that, essentially, it isn’t your ultimate authority! This is why we must argue transcendentally as Christians for ultimate truth.

PAGE 5

Prepared by MKM DUBOISEE DE RICQUEBOURG

PRESUPPOSING OUR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN PRACTICE THE TREE OF REALITY

EXTERNAL CRITIQUE: ARGUING WITH A FOOL NOT ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY Present the Christian worldview and illustrate how it explains features not explained by the nonchristian worldview. In this way the apologist shows the unbeliever how they are living on “borrowed capital” and, in one sense, have to presuppose the Christian worldview in order to make sense of the world.

PAGE 6

Prepared by MKM DUBOISEE DE RICQUEBOURG

INTERNAL CRITIQUE: ARGUING WITH A FOOL ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY. Argue from the unbeliever’s presuppositions for the sake of the argument. This is called reasoning reductio ad absurdum - reducing the opponent’s view to absurdity: Some examples include: 1. Nihilism claims there is no meaning or significance to life, thereby begging the question, “Is that a meaningful critique?” 2. Agnosticism & Scepticism claim that the truth can never be known, thereby begging the question, “How do we know this?” 3. Postmodernity claims that there is no absolute truth, thereby begging the question, “Is this absolutely true?” a. All Truth is interpreted. Begs the question, “Is that just your interpretation?” b. Truth is determined by person opinion. Begs the question, “Is that just your opinion?” c. Truth is determined by the consensus. Begs the question, “Who determines that the consensus decides?” d. Truth is arbitrary. Begs the question, “Is that an arbitrary claim?” 4. Empiricism claims that truth can only be discovered by empirical methods, thereby begging the question, “How can this statement be proved empirically?” 5. Logical Positivism, specifically, the Verification Principle states that the principle of verifiability may be used as a criterion to determine whether a statement is meaningful. To be meaningful, a statement must be either analytic (i.e. a tautology) or capable of being verified (Alfred Jules Ayer of the Vienna Circle). Begs the question, “How can the principle itself be verified?” 6. Materialism claims that the only thing that exists is matter, thereby begging the question, “How does this statement exist?” 7. Rationalism claims that the human mind determines all truth by reason, thereby begging the question, “Who determines the human mind?” (i.e. A rationalist can only defend the authority of reason only by using reason)

AN EXAMPLE An example from Doug Wilson of presuppositional apologetics in practice: “In fact, people's actions often reveal more about their likely deception than their words. For example, whenever you do something like go to a grocery store to buy milk, you reveal many things about yourself. When you first walk up to the grocery store, you assume that you and the store are two different things, not one, thus showing your rejection of most Eastern and New Age religions. When you walk down that same dairy aisle and select the same kind of milk, you assume that the world is not chaotic, but orderly, regular, and divided into set kinds of things. When you stand in line with others, expecting others to respect your space and person, you reveal your rejection of moral relativism and your deep trust in absolute ethical norms. When you calculate your available change, compare the price of the milk, and make the exchange with the clerk at the register, you engage in a complex array of thought processes involving nonmaterial rules of reasoning, thus showing your rejection of materialism and evolution. In short, when you do something as mundane as buying milk, you accept and reject all sorts of views. You act like you reject many popular religions and scientific claims. In fact, given the sum of what you assume and reject just when buying milk, you act like you believe that you live in the world described by Christianity. The world depicted above suggests complexities and contours of reality that are only supplied in Christianity. If Christianity weren't true, then such things as simple as milk buying would appear to be impossible. Now, you may openly reject Christianity, but you certainly act like it is true and that your non-Christianity is false. Why such selfdeception? Why don't you just confess what you appear to assume?”

PAGE 7

Prepared by MKM DUBOISEE DE RICQUEBOURG

GENTLENESS & HUMILITY IN APOLOGETICS 1. Correct with Gentleness: “Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:23-26) 2. Admit our failures and seek to learn. Being prepared to say, “I really don’t know.” 3. Golden Rule Apologetics: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matt 7:12) a. It’s not about winning – the temptation to argue ad hominem b. Principle of Charity vs. the straw-man. c. Do not demand of your opponent what you are unwilling to provide yourself

CONCLUSION "If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly, if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all." - C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else." – C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry?

PAGE 8

Prepared by MKM DUBOISEE DE RICQUEBOURG