Among Protestant theologians and philosophers of the Reformed tradition, presuppositional apologetics has held considerable sway for at least the last thirty years. This particular methodology makes a strong modal claim that the non-existence of God is not just improbable
but is impossible on atheistic epistemological grounds. Presuppositional apologetics is not merely a method of defending the faith, but is rather a philosophical system that depends upon a distinct ontology and epistemology. Owing to the distinctly reformed and Calvinistic theological underpinnings of the presuppositional system, recourse to natural theology is negated from the outset. The task of this short treatise will be to examine the reasons why proponents see no intercourse between natural theology and presuppositional apologetics. Additionally, areas of agreement or correspondence will be sought in an attempt to bolster the theistic position and provide the potential for a catholic utilization of the insights provided by presuppositional apologists in our philosophical and apologetical tasks.
In philosophical discourse ambiguity is the sworn enemy of mutual understanding and any attempt to synthesize natural theology and presuppositional apologetics will fail without considerable clarity. From the outset, a perspicuous account of the presuppositional methodology will be proffered in order to set the proper foundation for evaluating this explicit objection to natural theology. A prefatory note at this point is in order. The writings of Cornelius Van Til especially early on can be construed as inflammatory toward Roman Catholicism. However, to allow the hyperbolic nature of his writings to color the insights that he has provided will not further the discussion. A conscious effort has been made to allow him to speak unvarnished with the realization that many of his rhetorical flourishes were mere paper tigers.
The presuppositional method falls into two different varieties. On the one hand we have the revelatory method of Cornelius Van Til and on the other hand we have the scripturalist method of Gordon H. Clark. The former method will be examined owing to the brevity of this treatise and the popularity of the former over against the latter. The late Reformed apologist and philosopher Greg Bahnsen provides a succinct overview of the presuppositional approach. He writes “the presuppositional challenge to the unbeliever is guided by the premise that only the Christian worldview provides the philosophical preconditions necessary for man’s reasoning and knowledge in any field whatever” (Bahnsen, 1998)
As a subset of Reformed theology, the nature of apologetics must follow from a systematic understanding of theology. For the Presuppositionalist much stress is laid on man as a fallen creature. The question of reason and the right use of reason is tantamount to understanding this approach to proving God’s existence. Bahnsen relates Van Til’s sentiment when he writes that “every one of fallen man’s functions operates wrongly”(Bahnsen, 1998) This means of course that reason as employed in this particular methodology will be fatally flawed from outset and will never arrive at truth unaided without special revelation.
Van Til contrasts what he sees as the starting point for a distinctly reformed apologetic and competing apologetic programs of other Christian traditions. In particular he notes that Catholic apologetics begins with a basic assumption of neutrality and moves forward from this neutral ground. He writes “We conclude then that it is natural and consistent for Roman Catholic apologetics to seek its point of contact with the unbeliever in a “common area” of knowledge.” (Van Til, 1969)
In other words, the Christian philosopher or apologists must make from the outset a strong modal claim of the impossibility of the contrary. Conjoining a strong modal claim with the presuppositional methodology, any neutrality between the unbeliever and the believer is negated from the outset. Van Til asserts without hesitation that only the Reformed tradition can make such a claim. Roman Catholic and Arminian apologists must accept neutrality as part and parcel of their apologetic. In his book Christian Apologetics Van Til accentuates this point.
From the Roman Catholic and the Arminian point of view the question of methodology, like that of starting-point, is a neutral matter. According to these positions the Christian apologist can legitimately join the non-Christian scientist or philosopher as he, by his recognized methods, investigates certain dimensions of reality. Neither the follower of Thomas Aquinas nor the follower of the “judicious Butler” would need, on his principles, to object when, for instance, A. E. Taylor says: “Natural science, let me say again, is exclusively concerned with the detection of ‘laws of nature,’ uniformities of sequence in the course of events. (Van Til C. &., 2003 )
We begin to see the difficulty that natural theology presents for an advocate of presuppositional apologetics. If the apologetical task must begin with an absolute antithesis at the level of basic preconditions for intelligibility there can be no point at which some dialectical tension is not present. What remains is to find out whether or not it follows that epistemological neutrality precludes the apologist from utilizing natural theology in arguments pertaining to God’s existence.
Presuppositional Objections to Natural Theology
Aside from the question of methodology or starting point for apologetics, the presuppositionalist must go one step further and claim on principle that natural theology leads one away from knowledge of the Christian God. Van Til and anyone else engaged in revelatory apologetics must assume that our knowledge of God is reducible in some sense to what God has revealed in the scriptures. Accordingly, Reformed theology presupposes that man by way of what his senses can reveal will not apprehend what God is without some recourse to the self-disclosure of the Divine Being. Van Til asserts that St. Thomas advocates remotion because human intellection cannot perceive the divine substance in its truest form. Thus, we know something of God by knowing what he is not. Van Til takes umbrage with St. Thomas’ doctrine of remotion. He writes “On a Protestant basis the way of remotion or negation cannot be applied at all unless there be first a positive identification of God by himself. Since men are sinners this positive way of identification must be by the way of the self-attesting Christ speaking in the Scriptures.” (Van Til C. , The Defense of the Faith , 1955 )
Initially, this seems to be plausible however upon examination the apparent disconnect between the positive and negative poles of self-identification by God to man does not necessarily obtain. Van Til does not accept remotion on the premise that this is a negative and content less apologetic for God’s existence. However, it seems that Van Til may be guilty of fallacious reasoning on this point. Van Til is looking for self-disclosure from God in order to establish his positive characteristics. This is an example of petitio principii when placed in the proper context. Apprehending the self-attesting Christ of scripture presupposes man’s facility to perceive the word of God by way of his sense experience.
Another difficulty involves the nature of revelation. In some sense, revelation must be an effect situated within the causal chain. God created the world, an effect that testifies to the existence of God (cf. Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:19) along the causal chain we also find God’s special revelation of Christ through the prophets as an antecedent to Christ’s being sent into the world. The self-attestation of Christ and his status as a member of the Ontological Trinity presupposes a disclosure of God that must be construed as an effect of God’s fiat to create. In other words, the fact that Christ discloses himself in scripture cannot be divorced from creation as an effect.
Areas of Agreement
Many of the objections to natural theology involve rejections of certain premises either implicitly or explicitly asserted by advocates of natural theology such as St. Thomas Aquinas. However, there are areas of agreement. These areas of agreement are often overlooked when apologists and philosophers become unduly entrenched in their own viewpoints. Ultimately, Van Til sought to prove the truthfulness of the Christian worldview. In his book The Defense of the Faith he writes “In this work we are concerned with the defense of the “system of truth” presented in Scripture” (Van Til C. , The Defense of the Faith , 1955 )
With slight qualification we find considerable agreement between Van Til and St. Thomas. In defending the system of truth contained in the bible, Van Til implicitly accepts that God is truth and couched these terms, he must acknowledge that St. Thomas predates his assertion by many years. We find St. Thomas writing “it is self-evident that truth exists, for even denying it admits it. For if it doesn’t exist, then it’s true it doesn’t exist, and if something’s true, truth exists. Now God is truth itself: in John 14 [6], [Jesus says] I am the way, the truth, and the life. So it is self-evident that God exists.” (Aquinas, 1993, p. 196)
The presuppositionalist in stressing the impossibility of the contrary asserts with great confidence that universal, invariant, immutable laws of logic contain the essential properties of God. The strong modal claim mentioned above causes the apologist to stress these characteristics during the apologetic confrontation. Beyond the superficial similarities between God and laws of logic, the presuppositionalist is accepting a point well-made by St. Thomas. St. Thomas wrote that “The distinctions between things can’t result from chance since they are stably ordered; so they must result from some causal tendency” (Aquinas, 1993, p. 240) the principle of non-contradiction is at bottom a principle of distinction between things. We cannot assert that A is not ~A without employing a stably ordered distinction.
There are many in the Reformed tradition that do employ natural theology and do so with a sincere desire to defend the faith once delivered to the saints. Within the reformed tradition the only group that remains reticent to make use of natural theology seems to be those who ascribe to the presuppositional methodology discussed herein. However, as noted the areas of disagreement are not altogether clear. The epistemological neutrality is a subject of great debate and establishing the truthfulness of Christianity from the self-attesting Christ of scripture seems to be dependent upon effects that antedate the effects of God’s creative fiat.
The presuppositional approach can prove helpful, even “Catholic” when we stress the antithesis between a Christian conception of the world, a world where distinctions are stably ordered and laws of logic are irrational in a chance world. The role of man as covenant breaker does not necessarily mean that man will always assert with vigor that though the motion of the moved begs for an unmoved mover, and observable design belies the need for a designer, God does not exist. In fact, natural theology can prove fruitful in proving that God exists. At the same time there is still a real and palpable antithesis that exists in the worldview of the atheist and the theist. Regardless of our approach, the Presuppositionalist, the Classic Apologist, the Catholic, the Wesleyan, and the Presbyterian are servants of the same God. Augustine once wrote that all truth is God’s truth and this is true for both Van Til and St. Thomas.
Works Cited
Aquinas, S. T. (1993 ). Selected Philosophical Writings . Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Bahnsen, G. L. (1998). Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis . Harrisburg : Presbyterian and Reformed .
Van Til, C. &. (2003 ). Christian Apologetics . Phillipsburg : Presbyterian and Reformed .
Van Til, C. (1955 ). The Defense of the Faith . Philadelphia : Presbyterian and Reformed .
Van Til, C. (1969). A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.