Tagged: Van Til

In Defense of Apologetic’s By Timothy Keller

 

 

“Apologetics is an answer to the “why” question after you’ve already answered the “what” question. The what question, of course, is, “What is the gospel?” But when you call people to believe in the gospel and they ask, “Why should I believe that?”—then you need apologetics.

I’ve heard plenty of Christians try to answer the why question by going back to the what. “You have to believe because Jesus is the Son of God.” But that’s answering the why with morewhat. Increasingly we live in a time when you can’t avoid the why question. Just giving the what (for example, a vivid gospel presentation) worked in the days when the cultural institutions created an environment in which Christianity just felt true or at least honorable. But in a post-Christendom society, in the marketplace of ideas, you have to explain why this is true, or people will just dismiss it.

Is Apologetics Biblical?

There are plenty of Christians today who nevertheless say: “Don’t do apologetics, just expound the Word of God—preach and the power of the Word will strike people.” Others argue that “belonging comes before believing.” They say apologetics is a rational, Enlightenment approach, not a biblical one. People need to be brought into a community where they can see our love and our deeds, experience worship, have their imaginations captured, and faith will become credible to them.

There is a certain merit to these arguments. It would indeed be overly rationalistic to say that we can prove Christianity so that any rational person would have to believe it. In fact, this approach dishonors the sovereignty of God by bowing to our autonomous human reason. Community and worship are important, because people come to conviction through a combination of heart and mind, a sense of need, thinking things out intellectually, and seeing it in community. But I have also seen many skeptics brought into a warm Christian community and still ask, “But why should I believe you and not an atheist or a Muslim?”

We need to be careful of saying, “Just believe,” because what we’re really saying is, “Believe because I say so.” That sounds like a Nietzschean power play. That’s very different from Paul, who reasoned, argued, and proved in the Book of Acts, and from Peter, who called us to give the reason for our hope in 2 Peter 3:15. If our response is, “Our beliefs may seem utterly irrational to you, but if you see how much we love one another then you’ll want to believe too,” then we’ll sound like a cult. So we do need to do apologetics and answer the why question.

No Neutral Ground

However, the trouble with an exclusively rationalistic apologetic (“I’m going to prove to you that God exists, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Bible is true,” etc.) is that it does, in a sense, put God on trial before supposedly neutral, perfectly rational people sitting objectively on the throne of Reason. That doesn’t fit with what the Bible says about the reality of sin and the always prejudiced, distorted thinking produced by unbelief. On the other hand, an exclusively subjectivist apologetic (“Invite Jesus into your life and he’ll solve all your problems, but I can’t give you any good reasons, just trust with your heart”) also fails to bring conviction of real sin or of need.

There will be no joy in the grace of Jesus unless people see they’re lost. Thus a gospel-shaped apologetic must not simply present Christianity, it must also challenge the non-believer’s worldview and show where it, and they, have a real problem.”

 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/05/in-defense-of-apologetics/

God and Knowledge

‎”God does not need to look beyond himself for additions to his knowledge. Then what about God’s knowledge of the facts of the created world, of the things that exist besides himself? As Human Beings we must know or interpret the facts after we have looked at the facts, after they are there and perhaps after they have operated for some time. In the case of God, on the other hand, God’s knowledge of the facts comes first. God knows or interprets the facts before they are facts. It is God’s plan or his comprehensive interpretation of the facts that make the facts what they are.” -Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of The Faith, Page 32 

Is this supposed to honor Van Til?

I have been displeased with the general trend of the blog posts on The Gospel Coalition site for a while now. From the undertones of opposition to the free market, to the increasing accommodation of sinful culture, and the just downright silly articles. Today, I was once again disappointed by an article with a bizarre undertone.

 

Today, May 3rd, marks the  Birthday of one of the greatest minds of the Christian church has ever produced, Cornelius Van Til, who has born on this day in the year 1895. To mark the occasion, The Gospel Coalition produced a short article on him, why he should be read, and what books would be a good start. However, I sensed a faint yet strange tone in the article. Yes, the article acknowledged Van Til as a great mind, yes it prompted readers to discover his writings. But there seemed a hint of annoyance in the very brief article. Almost a frustration that we are forced to acknowledge the contributions of Van Til . The very title of the article is telling, “The Most Boring Important Thinker You Should Read”. Deep theological reading can be hard stuff, just try to read through John Owen or Francis Turretin. Would the Gospel Coalition have a blog post calling them boring? Just because somebody writes without constant distractions and jokes doesn’t make them “boring” if you are out to discover the truths of the faith. 

 

The article starts off in a equally bizarre fashion, for a post that is supposed to encourage people to read his writing: 

“On this day, in 1895, on a dairy farm in the middle of the Netherlands, the world changed. The effects, however, would not become apparent for another 50 to 60 years. Cornelius Van Til, future philosopher and apologist at Westminster Theological Seminary, was born.

I offer this dramatic introduction only half-seriously, which means I’m only half-joking.

By reading some of Van Til’s followers, you would think he authored the first thoroughly biblical understanding of the knowledge of God. “

Is such a form of strange, almost irritated sarcasm really necessary?  The brief article neglects a greater part of Van Til’s legacy and arguably links him to people he would want to have nothing to do with. Is this the best the Gospel Coalition could do? One short and strange article? 

Perhaps I am reading to much into the short article, have a look at the few sentences yourself: 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/05/02/the-most-boring-important-thinker-you-should-read/

“A Time to Be Silent: When and How to Stop Sharing the Gospel” by Bob Gonzales

The following is an article written by Dr. Bob Gonzales, a professor at The Reformed Baptist Seminary. I thought it demonstrated scriptural wisdom very clearly as well as a Presuppositional method of apologetics. As I said, I wrote none of the following article, all credit goes to Dr. Gonzales.

“One of the marks of a Christian is a desire to share the good news of the life-transforming gospel with others. In the words of the apostles, “We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). But what if a friend, fellow worker, schoolmate, or family member asks us to desist? Does there come a time when we should refrain from speaking to a person about Jesus and Christianity?

Thanks, But No Thanks

A few years ago, I sent John Piper’s booklet The Passion of Christ: Fifty Reasons Why He Came to Die to several close friends and relatives. To my knowledge, most of them were not Christians. I had already shared the gospel with some. With others I had not–at least not in a more comprehensive way. I wanted to be able to face Jesus on Judgment Day with the knowledge that I had attempted to share the gospel with those who were close to me.

Disappointingly, one couple replied with a letter and some materials that made it clear they rejected Christianity, affirmed materialistic evolution, and wished me to relinquish my attempts at trying to convert them. They were polite. But they were also resolute. They didn’t believe in God, and they preferred that I give up any attempt in persuading them otherwise.

A Time to Keep Silence

According to Scripture, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Eccl 3:7). I believe gospel witness falls under the umbrella of this general axiom. All Christians have a responsibility (according to their level of maturity, gift, and opportunity) to propagate the good news about Jesus (Matt 5:13-16; Acts 8:1-4; 1 Thess 1:6-9; 1 Pet 3:15).1 Moreover, we should be prudent, patient, and persevering in our gospel witness (Prov 26:4-5; Matt 10:16; 1 Cor 3:6-7; 1 Tim 1:12-16; 2 Tim 2:24-25; 1 Pet 3:9). Nevertheless, there comes a time when we should refrain from speaking

The New Testament teaches by principle and precedent that Christians should temporarily or, in some cases, indefinitely terminate their explicit communication of the gospel with certain individuals when those individuals resolutely reject the truth and clearly request that your evangelistic efforts stop. Jesus told his disciples to move on when a person or group of people firmly rejected their gospel witness and no longer welcomed them (Matt 10:11-14; cf. Acts 13:46). Elsewhere he repeated the directive in metaphorical terms: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces” (Matt 7:6). Jesus himself continued to share the gospel with antagonists up to a point–then he was silent (Matt 26:63; Mark 14:61).

One Last Time

So I judged it was time to stop sharing the gospel with this couple–at least overtly. I also thought it wise and appropriate to communicate my intent with kindness and tact. However, since this would be my last opportunity to address with them a topic of such eternal magnitude, I decided to accompany the promise to cease with a final gospel challenge. Below is the letter I sent to them, edited to protect their identity. (Those familiar with Christian apologetics will note my “presuppositional” approach.)

Dear ______ and ______,

I regret that a busy schedule has forced me to put off a response to your letter. But it has remained on my list of “things-to-do” for some time, and the opportunity has finally come! 

First of all, thank you both for your love and concern. I am doing much better now, though to some degree I must live with a measure of chronic pain and fatigue. But compared with many who suffer in this world, my bodily affliction is relatively light. I thank God for the health I do enjoy and which I do not deserve. Secondly, thank you for the nice map. Our family is big on maps, and this one has made a nice addition to our collection. Thirdly, I want thank you for responding to my earlier request that you consider the truth and claims of Christianity. The National Geographic article arguing for evolution, the magazine article entitled, “How to Think About the Mind,” and the comments in your letter make it clear that you have chosen to believe a materialistic-evolutionary view of reality rather than a Christian view of reality. As a Christian, I still love you and respect your freedom (as individuals made in the image of God) to choose your own beliefs. I would, however, indulge one last time upon your patience and goodwill. Let me assure you that I will never bring up the Christian faith or gospel with you again unless you ask me to. But I would like to leave you with a couple of final thoughts. 

You may not realize this, but I am a converted evolutionist. As a young man, I was taught the theory of evolution as fact, and I eventually embraced it as such.    However, later in life I was introduced to the Christian worldview, which contradicted evolution. But it was not merely the teachings of Scripture that finally convinced me evolution was untenable. I have rejected evolution on both scientific andphilosophical grounds as well. And as the National Geographic article you sent suggested, I am not alone: “nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most” (p. 6). Of course, the author of this article, a rather zealous evolutionist, blames “Scriptural literalism” and widespread “ignorance.” But another cause, which he overlooked (?) is a growing rejection of evolution among well-educated and scientifically-minded people. Either the author of this article is himself ignorant of the growing body scientific and philosophical literature that exposes the fallacies of evolution, or he prefers to win an argument by ignoring his opponents. A much more honest and humble approach is exemplified by Dr. W. R. Thompson—himself an evolutionist—in his preface to a reprint of Darwin’s Origin of Species:

As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.  This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science (emphasis mine; New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1956).

Because I know you both like science and because I assume you want to follow the truth wherever it leads, I’m sending you two books, which seriously undermine the so-called scientific or philosophical basis for the theory of evolution. Let me quickly point out that neither of these books has been written by a pastor or theologian. The first book, Darwin’s Black Box (The Free Press, 2003), has been written by Michael Behe, professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. This book has proved so persuasive that a leading atheist has recently become a theist. (See the enclosed ABC News article, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God.”) The second book, Darwin on Trial (Intervarsity Press, 1993), has been written by a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Let me assure you there are many more such books, but I have found these quite helpful and enlightening. I am also sending you a taped debate between an evolutionist and Christian theologian-philosopher entitled, “The Great Debate: Does God Exist?” The books and the debate will demonstrate that Christianity does not require one to put his head in the sand. Please accept them as a gift. 

But perhaps you feel skeptical. After all, according to the article you sent there are still a number of Americans today—at least 12 percent—who believe “that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god” (p. 6). We know that religions can sometimes hold on to and perpetuate bad dogma.  But is it possible that educated people could hold on to and perpetuate bad “science”? Absolutely! Take, for example, the medical practice of “blood-letting,” which killed our first president. The medical establishment of George Washington’s day defended and practiced this deadly “remedy” as sciencedespite the total lack of evidence for its effectiveness. (Even the Bible cannot be blamed for this superstitious practice since, according to Scripture, “the life of the flesh is in the blood” [Lev. 17:11, 14]!) 

But I believe there is another reason, besides bad “science,” for the tenacious insistence and perpetuation of evolution. I would suggest that many people prefer to retain evolution—despite the lack of realevidence—because it justifies living life apart from God and apart from any absolute standards of morality. In your letter, you assert that “almost all the battles and wars [of world history] are over religion.” I won’t deny that religion has often had some part to play in wars. But I would point out that atheistic evolutionism as a view of reality and ethics has also had a part to play. Indeed, it was Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” that moved Hitler to exterminate so many Jews as inferior specimens of the human race. Of course, if I were an evolutionist, I could not condemn Hitler or Nazi Germany for the Holocaust. After all, as the Harvard professor in the article you sent me argued, what many of us would call “murderous,” “hateful,” “depraved,” and “evil,” was in reality nothing more than “the activity of the brain.” If I were an evolutionist, I would have to chalk up Hitler’s “atrocities” to overcharged neurons orchemical imbalances in the brain! 

I am in no way implying that you, ______ and ______, would excuse Hitler’s actions, any more than I would excuse atrocities committed in the name of religion. But I would ask you to consider this: how does materialistic evolutionism provide you with a basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of another man’s beliefs or actions?  In reality, evolution provides you with no basis of ethics, which is another strike against it. You have to assume a worldview in which there are absolute standards of right and wrong—a worldview in which human beings have intrinsic worth and therefore should be “respected”  because they’re not just a sophisticated blob of molecules!

I know you know this in your heart of hearts. You have been created in the image of God with a moral faculty called “conscience,” and you cannot escape the nagging reality of human value, human sin, and human accountability to the Lord of all creation. At least that’s my view of things.  In any event, I don’t want to try your patience and goodwill. I suppose you wish I would simply keep my “theory” of Christianity to myself, just as you keep your “theory” of evolution to yourself.  If you insist, I will comply with your wish. But I confess it’s not as easy for me as it is for you. Once again, look at our “theories” as views of reality. Imagine there’s a building filled with people and smoke rising from the top. Your “theory” says, “The smoke’s just part of the building.  It’s normal.  Nothing to worry about.” My “theory” says, “There’s a deadly fire and people’s lives are in danger.” My theory compels me to “meddle” in others’ business and warn him of perceived peril. Your theory, on the other hand, allows you to mind your business and leave others alone. Of course, this illustration does not by itself prove or disproveeither “theory.” But it does account for the reason why Christians, like your two sisters, ______ and ______, find it difficult not to share their views with you.

In closing, let me reiterate my love and respect. At one level, I genuinely view you both as “good people.” That is, you have many admirable qualities and have done many admirable things. Yet, at another level, I view you both, as I view my own self and all other men, as sinners who have rebelled against their Creator and who are in need of a Savior. If you are ever interested in learning more about that Savior—Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God—I’d be delighted to tell you! Otherwise, from this point forward I will keep my Christianity to myself until you ask. And whether or not you ever want to talk about religion, I still hope to see you again. 

With sincerity and love,
Bobby Gonzales

Still Praying

It’s been over seven years since I wrote that letter. This couple has remained very friendly and generous toward me. I love them. I hope they’ll change their mind about the gospel before they die. But until they give me the “green light,” I’ll try to live a life that adorns the gospel I believe and keep praying for God to grant them a change of heart.

B.G.”

 

The original can be found here: http://drbobgonzales.com/2012/a-time-to-be-silent-when-and-how-to-stop-sharing-the-gospel/

Satire.

The following is a satire Essay I wrote for English class. I am pretending to be a Post-Modern offended by the objectivity of math and Logic. The real intent behind this satire is to critique Postmodernism from a Vantillian Presuppositional perspective. Just remember this is Satire and I don’t mean anything here to be offensive.  Here you have it:

 

Over the past 50 years America has become one of the most racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse nations on earth.  Accompanying this has been the principle of tolerance, where we recognize that in order to have a civil and fair society; we must accept that the beliefs that are true for us personally are not necessarily true for other people. However, in this grand move towards tolerance and respect for all opinions and beliefs, there is one area of society that has been overlooked: the American educational system. Day after day, in schools and universities across America, students are told there is only one right way to answer and one proper way to think.  They are told that certain answers are not acceptable, and they are brushed aside without further consideration because they do not meet a certain criteria that the teacher deems acceptable.  In what classrooms does this blatant intolerance and bigotry take place? In the subjects of mathematics and logic, which continually force the opinion of the instructor on the student.  Subjects in which two plus two must equal four and five times five must equal twenty-five, where some answers are deemed unacceptable without any consideration because they violate arbitrary rules such as the” law of non-contradiction”. The current methods of teaching mathematics and logic are intolerant and offensive to those with a different viewpoint from the professor or textbook and should be changed to allow for all beliefs.

This previously unexamined issue has been pushed to the forefront in recent months, due to the courageous actions of several students who spoke up about the discrimination they endured in classrooms across America. Frank Wallace writes of these students struggles in his article in The Wall Street Journal that appeared on January 12, 2012, entitled “The Emerging Fight in Our Schools”, where he tells the struggle of two students with bigoted teachers. Wallace first tells about Josh Hayes, a junior at Drake High School in Drake, North Dakota, who had a disagreement with his teacher on the first day of his “Logic and Rhetorical Studies” class (Wallace). Wallace writes, “Josh was told to be quiet and sit down by his teacher because his answer contained a so called contradiction” (Wallace). Josh was very offended by this, Wallace quotes him as saying, “I just ain’t never done heard of that, I wasn’t raised on that hooey” (Wallace). What the teacher took as a logical contradiction was actually a long standing belief of the Hayes family, passed down for generations (Wallace). Josh said, “This is America, I should be able to form my own opinions and beliefs” (Wallace).  Another student, Keeleenah Mapatoozulo, who is a native of The Marshall Islands and attends the University of Illinois, was humiliated when her math teacher told her that her native tribe’s traditional belief that the sum of any two numbers is always zero was idiotic (Wallace).  If a student was told that his or her beliefs in religion were idiotic, there would have been uproar across the nation, but day after day students are told their beliefs in math and logic are silly and not relevant to the discussion. Just as African American students once suffered under an unjust educational system built around racial discrimination, so the student today suffers in a system built around bigotry against differing opinions in math and logic.

In times past, when citizens cried out in the midst of injustice, the government answered their cries by taking action, such as allowing women the right to vote, or passing the Civil Rights Act. Once again, as cries of injustice fill the land, Congress has been spurred to action. Samuel Lupas writing in Newsweek magazine on February 1, 2012, in an article entitled “Congress set to take action on school curriculum”, reports that “Congressmen from both parties have come together to address this crisis, bound together by the principle that our schools should respect all beliefs” (Lupas). Too many times in American history, people have turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to injustice. Slavery, disenfranchisement of women, racial discrimination, and religious intolerance were all allowed to go on unpunished and even supported for a time. But eventually when the American people recognized the injustice of intolerance, the government swiftly moved to correct it and restore equality and fairness. Now, at a time when the American people are being awakened to the fact that our schools system is built on the very premise of intolerance and bigotry, the government is prepared to do their duty and end this rank injustice. Governmental force is the only action that can ensure our society is fair and tolerant toward all people, as Lupas quotes Senator Daniel Jones (D-NY) as saying, “We can no longer allow our schools to be a platform for big bigoted bullies to pick on poor students” (Lupas).   Like slave masters hundreds of years ago, teachers today are using their position to force their opinions on students because the government isn’t there to stop them.

Teachers have attempted to defend themselves from charges of bigotry and intolerance, but their responses only prove how warped and hate filled they really are. The previously mentioned Wall Street Journal article quotes Arthur Anderson, a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Illinois as saying, “All I did was teach math, and math is not based off an opinion, it’s a fact” (Wallace). Despite the fact that we cannot examine math and logic under a microscope, they continue to be proclaimed as obvious truth.  Teachers in the classroom have respected different views about religion, science, and history all because of our inability to examine abstract truths that are not physical, but when it comes to these two subjects teachers continue to force their interpretation on students. Wallace quotes another teacher, Kim Hall of Drake High School as saying “Without logical rules nothing we say would be coherent, some statements just logically do not make sense, they have no meaning” (Wallace). Despite the abstract nature of math and logic, our intolerant school teachers continue to force their viewpoint on students.

Students and politicians are not the only ones taking action in this fight. Numerous citizens who have been awakened to the abounding injustice in our schools have formed organizations to fight for fairness in education; two of the most prominent organizations are NOFM (The National Organization for Fair Mathematics) and CCFL (Concerned Citizens for Free Logic).  Karen Allison writing in Time magazine on February 1, 2012, in an article entitled “The New Civil Rights Movement?” quotes Timothy Johnson president of NOFM as saying, “You cannot demonstrate the truth of an abstract principle of morality, religion, logic, or math, and therefore you cannot force people to hold to one particular viewpoint.” (Allison). It would be archaic, therefore, if in a modern age of science we based our thinking on something that is abstract instead of physical (Allison). Allison also quotes Mary Dawson, president of CCFL as saying “The laws of math and logic are not provable any more than a particular religion is; it all comes down to whatever your personal opinion on it is” (Allison). Allison goes on to quote Dawson as saying, “If teachers are not allowed to contradict and mock student’s beliefs concerning a deity and his decrees that we cannot see, why are they allowed to mock their beliefs concerning a set of principles which we cannot see or examine” (Allison). One wonders why it has taken this long for society to recognize the inherent injustice in the way our schools teach math and logic.

In the course of this paper, we have seen that the current methods of teaching mathematics and logic are intolerant and offensive to those with a different viewpoint from the professor or textbook, and how they should be changed to allow for all beliefs. We have also gotten a glimpse of a conflict that has erupted all across this nation, a conflict that is much more than an argument over whether or not students will be comfortable in their college classes or not. No, it is much more than that. It is a battle over the very progress and destiny of the human race. There are two paths we can go down, we can continue the upward path that we have been forging, a path of progress, fairness, tolerance and love; a path where we decide our own destiny and we throw off all vestiges of archaic belief systems and abstract principles that bind us in chains of superstition and intolerance. An upward path that has potential to usher in a new millennium of human history, where all people live in tolerance of others and nobody believes he knows that the other is ultimately wrong and misguided.  Or we can choose a downward path, a path that has been forged by two thousand years of religious intolerance and violence, racial prejudice, and subjugation of women. A downward path that is filled with religious crusades and objective truths that blind people to the principles of love and tolerance. That is the choice before us in this debate, will we allow all beliefs to be heard and respected? Or will one opinion be voiced in the classroom by the teacher that silences all the rest? So far, the American educational system has not allowed for all beliefs to be heard, it has silenced and suppressed the minority opinion.

 

– Patrick Gruber