|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
The Bible teaches us that when we attempt to approach any subject or any activity with an attitude of neutrality toward the demands of God that we have already disobeyed God. Because God does not permit us to take a neutral, indifferent, uncommitted, point of view or frame of mind to our thinking and behavior, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8) Paul obviously is concerned about a particular kind of philosophy we need to be warned about. The term “lest any man spoil you “ means “lest anyone mug or rob you.” [3]
Paul infallibly declares in Colossians that “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ.” Note he says ALL wisdom and knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ - whether it be about the War of 1812, water’s chemical composition, the literature of Shakespeare, or the laws of logic! How do we avoid being mugged by vain philosophy? We start with Christ in every academic pursuit and every pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is THE way, THE truth, and THE life (John 14:6). To avoid Christ in your thought at any point, then, is to be misled, untruthful, and spiritually dead. Where does the departure from the treasures of Christ lead to? Poverty! You will be deprived of wisdom and will become a fool. To put aside your Christian commitments when it comes to defending the faith or sending your children to school is willfully to steer away from the only path to wisdom and truth IN Christ. It is not the end or outcome of knowledge to fear the Lord; it is the beginning of knowledge to reverence Him (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10).
Paul declares that all knowledge must be related to Christ, then, according to Colossians 2. He says this for our protection; it is very dangerous to fail to see the necessity of Christ in all our thinking. So Paul draws to our attention the impossibility of neutrality “in order that no one deludes you with crafty speech.” Instead we must, as Paul exhorts, be steadfast, confirmed, rooted, and established in the faith as we were taught (v. 7). One must be presuppositionally committed to Christ in the world of thought (rather than neutral) and firmly tied down to the faith which he had been taught, or else the persuasive argumentation of secular thought will delude him. Hence the Christian is obligated to presuppose the word of Christ in every area of knowledge; the alternative is delusion.
Attempting to be neutral in one’s intellectual endeavors is tantamount to striving to erase the antithesis between the Christian and the unbeliever. Christ declared that the former was set apart from the latter by the truth of God’s word. Those who wish to gain dignity in the eyes of the world’s intellectuals by wearing the badge of “neutrality” only do so at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God’s truth.
Therefore, the Christian who strives after neutrality in his thought is found actually to be endeavoring to efface the fact that he is a Christian! By denying his distinctive religious commitment he is reduced to apostate thought patterns and absorbed into the world of unbelief. Attempting to find a compromise between the demands of worldly neutrality (agnosticism) and the doctrines of Christ’s word results in the rejection of Christ’s distinctive Lordship by obliterating the great gulf between the the thinking of the old man and that of the new man.
No such compromise is even possible. “No man is able to serve two lords” (Matthew 6:24). It should come as no surprise that, in a world where all things have been created by Christ (Colossians 1:16) and are carried along by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3) and where all knowledge is therefore deposited in Him who is The Truth (Colossians 2:3; John 14:6) and who must be Lord over all thinking (2 Corinthians 10:56), neutrality is nothing short of immorality, “Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).
It is not merely that the attempt to be neutral leads to dire consequences, as we have argued, but that it is also immoral. Jesus said in Matthew 6: 24, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” When a Christian attempts to enter the arena of apologetics but in doing so attempts to honor the master of the unbeliever, his way of thinking, is he not attempting to serve two masters? In addition, Jesus said in Matthew 6: 30, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” How much room is there for neutrality in this verse? Thus not only is neutrality impossible, it is immoral.
Paul states in Ephesians 4:17, “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” Thus Paul says that you are forbidden to have the mind set of unregenerate men. Their mind set is not neutral and not something which is to be longed for, so why would we in an attempt win people to Christ, use the vain darkened reasoning of unbelief to show people the truth?
Likewise Paul states in Romans 1:21-22, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” Although they know God, their suppression of Him does not lead their thinking to become top notch but vain and foolish. Thus we as apologists are not to say, “If I could only be like Epicurous or Kant.” The thinking of the unbelieving philosopher is VAIN in his thinking and futile. But Paul states in Ephesians 4:20-21, “But ye have not so learned Christ.” We did not become Christians by following the mindset of the non-Christian, the fools of this world. Paul goes on to say , “If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your MIND; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (vv. 21-24) We are renewed in Christ and thus we ought not to think as we did when we thought autonomously, stooping to the philosophy of the world in order to bring them to Christ. The attempt to be neutral is to set apart our distinctive as Christians, consecrated by God’s word of truth.
Returning to Ephesians 4 and Colossians 2, let us ask what the true character of neutralist thinking is. Just what kind of thinking is it that does not base itself upon the teaching of God’s Son, that refrains from presupposing the doctrines of Christ?
Paul tells us in Ephesians 4 that to follow the methods dictated by the intellectual outlook of those who are outside of a saving relationship to God is to have a vain mind and a darkened understanding (vv. 17-18). Neutralist thinking, then, is characterized by intellectual futility and ignorance. In God’s light we are able to see light (Psalm 36:9). To turn away from intellectual dependence upon the light of God, the truth about and from God, is o turn away from knowledge to the darkness of ignorance. Thus if the Christian wishes to begin his scholarly endeavors from a position of neutrality he would, in actuality, be willing to begin his thinking in the dark. He would not allow God’s word to be a light unto his path (Psalm. 119:105). To walk on in neutrality he would be stumbling along in darkness. God is certainly not honored by such thought as He should be, and consequently God makes such reasoning vain (Romans 1:21b). Neutrality amounts to vanity in God’s sight.
That “philosophy” which does not find its starting point and direction in Christ is further described by Paul in Colossians 2:8. It has been mistakenly thought from time to time that this passage condemns any and all philosophy, that without qualification the Christian must avoid philosophic thought like the plague. However, a careful reading of the passage will evidence that this is not so. Paul does not disapprobate philosophy absolutely, for he delineates certain qualification. It turns out that there is a particular kind of philosophic thinking that Paul scorns. Paul is not against the “love of wisdom” per se. Philosophy is fine as long as one properly finds genuine wisdom - which means, for Paul, finding it in Christ (Colossians 2:3).
However, there is a kind of “philosophy” which does not begin with the truth of God, the teaching of Christ. Instead this philosophy takes its direction and finds its origin in the accepted principles of the world’s intellectuals - in the traditions of men. Such philosophy as this is the subject of Paul’s disapprobation in Colossians 2:8. It is instructive for us, especially if we are prone to accept the demands of neutrality in our thinking, to investigate his characterizations of that kind of philosophy.
Paul says that it is “vain deception.” What kind of thinking is it that can be characterized as “vain”? A ready answer is found by comparison and contrast in scriptural passages that speak of vanity (e.g., Deut. 32:47; Phil. 2:16; Acts 4:25; 1 Corinthians 3:20; 1 Timothy 1:6; 6:20; 2 Timothy 2:15:15-18; Tit. 1:9-10). Vain thinking is that which is not in accord with God’s word. A similar study will demonstrate that “deceptive” thinking is thought which is in opposition to God’s word (cf. Heb. 3:12-15; Ephesians 4:22; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; 2 Peter 2:13). The “vain deception” against which Paul warns, then, is philosophy which operates from, and against, the truth of Christ. Note the injunctions of Ephesians 5:6, “Let no man deceive you with vain words.” In Colossians 2:8 we are told to take care lest we be robbed through “vain deceit.”
Paul further characterizes this kind of philosophy as “according to the traditions of men, after the fundamental principles of the world.” That is, this philosophy sets aside God’s word and makes it void (cf. Mark 7:8-13), and it does so by beginning with the elements of learning dictated by the world (i.e. the precepts of men; cf. Colossians 2:20,22). The philosophy which Paul spurns is that reasoning which follows the presuppositions (the elementary assumptions) of the world, and thereby is “not according to Christ.”
It follows from these points that the Christian who strives for neutrality in the world of thought is (1) not neutral at all, and this (2) in danger of unwittingly endorsing assumptions that are hostile to his Christian faith. While imagining that his intellectual neutrality is compatible with a Christian profession, such a believer is actually operating in terms of unbelief! In doing so he refuses to presuppose the truth of Christ, he invariably ends up presuppositioning the outlook of the world instead. All men have their presuppositions; none is neutral. Shall your presuppositions be the teachings of Christ or the vain deception against which Paul warns? You cannot be neutral and thus must choose this day whom will serve.
The believer is directed to avoid philosophy which is rooted in worldly, humanistic, and non-Christian presuppositions (Colossians 28). Instead he is called to be rooted in Christ and established in the faith (v. 7); his presuppositions must be the precepts and doctrines of Christ, not the futile traditions of men. This precludes the claim to neutrality and prohibits seeking after it. Neutrality is in actuality veiled agnosticism or unbelief - a failure to walk in Christ, an obscuring of Christian commitment and distinctives, a suppression of the truth (Romans 1:21; 25).
Thus Paul commands us to be rooted in Christ and to shun the presuppositions of secularism. In Colossians 2:6-7 he explains very simply how we should go about having our lives (including our scholarly endeavors) grounded in Christ and thereby insuring that our reasoning is guided by Christian presuppositions. He says, “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,”: that is, walk in Christ in the same way in which you received Him. If you do this you will be “... established in your faith, just as you were instructed.” How then did you become a Christian? After the same fashion you should grow and mature in your Christian walk.
When one becomes a Christian his faith has not been generated by the thought patterns of worldly wisdom. The world in its wisdom knows not God (1 Corinthians 1:21) but considers the word of the cross to be foolish (1 Corinthians 1:18, 21b). If one keeps the perspective of the world, then he shall be in “Christ Jesus” who is made unto believers “wisdom from God” (1 Corinthians. 1:30). Hence, faith, rather than self-sufficient sight, makes you a Christian, and this trust is directed toward Christ, not you own intellect. This is to say that the way you receive Christ is to turn away from the wisdom of men (the perspective of secular thought with its presuppositions) and gain, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:12-16). When one becomes a Christian his faith stands not in the wisdom of men but in the powerful demonstration of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:4-5).
Moreover, what the Holy Spirit causes all believers to say is “Jesus is Lord” (1 Corinthians. 12:3). Jesus was crucified, resurrected and ascended in order that He might be confessed as Lord (Cf. Romans 14:9; Philippians 2:11) Thus Paul can summarize that message which must be confessed is if we are to be saved as “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9). To become a Christian on submits to the Lordship of Christ; he renounces autonomy and comes under the authority of God’s Son. The One who Paul says we receive, according to Colossians 2:6, is Jesus Christ the Lord. As Lord over the believer, Christ requires that the Christian love Him with every faculty he possesses (including his mind, Matthew 22:37); every thought must be brought captive to the obedience of Christ.
Consequently, when Paul directs us to walk in Christ after the same fashion in which we received Him, w can see at least this much: the Christian walk does not honor the thought patterns of worldly wisdom but submits to the epistemic Lordship of Christ (i.e. His authority in the area of thought and knowledge. In this manner a person comes to faith, and in this manner the believer must continue to live and carry out his calling - even when he is concerned with scholarship, apologetics, or schooling.
If a Christian will evidence commitment to Christ’s personal Lordship and presuppose the word of the Lord, then he will be walking in Christ after the manner in which he received Him. Hereby you will be “rooted in Him” rather than rooted in the apostate presuppositions of worldly philosophy, and we shall be able to behold “the steadfastness of your faith in Christ” (Colossians 2:5). Such firm, presuppositional faith in Christ will resist the secular world’s demand for neutrality and reject the unbeliever’s standards of knowledge and truth in favor of the authority of Christ’s word. This faith will not be plundered of all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge that are hidden in Christ, and will not be deluded by the crafty speech and vain deceit of secular philosophies (vv. 3-8). Therefore, the unqualified precondition of genuine Christian scholarship is that the believer (along with all his thinking) will be “rooted in Christ” (v.7). Interestingly, the verb tense of the Greek “rooted” in the this verse suggests action which has been accomplished in the past but continues in force or effect in the present - which is precisely Paul’s point in verse 6! The principles which apply to the Christian’s walk (inclusive of his thought) are the same which applied to his previous reception of Christ at conversion. The Christian scholar, having been rooted in Christ by renouncing the authority of secular wisdom for the Lordship of Christ, must carry out his scholarly endeavors by continuing to be rooted in Christ in the same fashion.
Therefore, the new man, the believer with a renewed mind that has been taught by Christ, is no more to walk in the intellectual vanity and darkness which characterizes the unbelieving world (Ephesians 4:17-21). The Christian has new commitments, new presuppositions, a new Lord, a new direction and goal - he is a NEW man. That newness is expressed in his thinking and scholarship, for (as in all other areas) Christ must have the preeminence in the world of thought (Colossians. 1:18b). We must concur with Van Til in saying:
“It is Christ as God who speaks in the Bible. Therefore the Bible does not appeal to human reason as ultimate in order to justify what it says. It comes to the human being with absolute authority. Its claim is that human reason must itself be taken in the sense in which the Scriptures take it, namely, as created by God and as therefore properly subject to the authority of God... The two systems, that of the non-Christian and that of the Christian, differ because of the fact that their basic assumptions, or presuppositions differ. On the non-Christian basis man is assumed to be the final reference point in predication... The Reformed method... begins frankly “from above.” It would “presuppose” God. But in presupposing God it cannot place itself at any point on a neutral basis with the non-Christian... Believers themselves have not chosen the Christian position because they are wiser than others. What they they have they have by grace alone. But this fact does not mean that they must accept the problematics of fallen man as right or even as possibly right. For the essence of the idea of Scripture is that it alone is the criterion of truth.” [4]
Having dismissed the taunting accusation of obscurantist arrogance in presuppositional epistemology, we go on to consider a second kind of criticism that is commonly leveled at the position. A biblical theory of knowledge proclaims the absolute requirement of God’s revealed truth as the tacit foundation of understanding and knowledge.
Against such an outlook it has been urged that the unbeliever would be reduced to the level of inescapable stupidity - deprived of any knowledge whatsoever. If Christian presuppositions are necessary to understanding, then allegedly the non-Christian cannot understand anything at all! Yet from what we see in the world around us and from what we read of history, it is clear that unbelievers have attained knowledge of many things. Thus it would appear that presuppositional epistemology implies something that is patently false, in which case presuppositionalism is itself false.
But does presuppositionalism really imply any such thing? No, far from it. In fact, the presuppositionalist claims that only his epistemological position guarantees that unbelievers can make positive contributions to the edifice of knowledge! What the critic has erroneously inferred is that, if revealed presuppositions are necessary to understanding of the world, then non-Christians are totally ignorant since they do not admit to revealed presuppositions.
However, the presuppositionalist maintains that the unbeliever can come to know certain things (despite his espoused rejection of God’s truth) for the simple reason that he does have revealed presuppositions - and cannot but have them as a creature made as God’s image and living in God’s created world. Although he outwardly and vehemently the truth of God, no unbeliever is inwardly and sincerely devoid of a knowledge of God. It is not a saving knowledge of God to be sure, but even as condemning knowledge natural revelation still provides a knowledge of God. Thus, according to biblical epistemology, while men deny their Creator they nevertheless possess an inescapable knowledge of Him; and because they know God (even though they know Him in curse and reprobation) they are able to attain a limited understanding of the world.
The unbeliever is actually double-minded. At base all me know God as His creatures, but as sinners all men refuse to acknowledge their Creator and live by His revelation. Hence we can say that men both know and do not know God; they know Him in judgment and in virtue of natural revelation, but thy do not know Him in blessing unless it is in virtue of supernatural revelation and as saving grace. Though happened by his moral condition, the unbeliever’s scholarship is not completely defunct. He can attain knowledge despite himself. In principle his unbelief would preclude understand of anything, for (as Augustine said) one muse believe in order to understand. However, in practice the unbeliever is restrained from a consistent, self-destructive following of his unbelieving profession.
If the unbeliever were a total idiot he would be free from guilt. But Paul’s point in Romans 1 is that the unbeliever rebellion is willful and knowledgeable; he sins against his better knowledge and is thus “without excuse” (20-21). And while he suppresses his better knowledge in unrighteousness (v. 18), that knowledge provides a foundation of his (limited, but real) understanding of God’s world.
Central to the position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of natural revelation. The world was created by the word of God (Gen. 1:3; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2) and thereby reflects the mind and character of God (Romans 1:20). Man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Psalm 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Psalm 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Psalm 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Romans 1:21) - the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9) and so Calvin declares:
“For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate... the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith” [5]
Because the unbeliever is inconsistent in his adherence to a denial of God’s truth, because he and the world are not what he professes them to be, the unbeliever is afforded some knowledge. Thus the antithesis between believer and unbeliever is absolute only in principle at this time. Van Til rightly observes:
“The absolute contrast between the Christian and the non-Christian in the field of knowledge is said to be that of principle. Full recognition is made of the fact that in spite of his absolute contrast of principle, there is relative good in those who are evil... So far as men self-consciously work from this principle they have no notion in common with the believer... But in the course of history the natural man is not fully self-conscious of his own position... He has within Him the knowledge of God by virtue of his creation in the image of God. But this idea of God is suppressed by his false principle, the principle of autonomy. This principle of autonomy, is in turn, suppressed by the restraining power of God’s common grace... And by the striving of the Spirit... their hostility is curbed in some measure... And as such they can cooperate by virtue of the ethical restraint of common grace.”[6]
Hereby the challenge of presuppositionalism is strengthened further. All knowledge, even the knowledge possessed by the unbeliever in unrighteousness, must be founded upon the accepted truth about God. Therefore, both the unbeliever’s knowledge and God’s common grace should be used, not to encourage neutrality, but to press home the demands of God at every point. Van Til says,
“Common grace is not a gift from God whereby his own challenge to repentance unto men who have sinned against him is temporarily being blurred. Common grace must rather serve the challenge of God to repentance. It must be a tool by means of which the believer as the servant of Christ can challenge the unbeliever to repentance. Believers can objectively show to unbelievers that unity of science can be attained only on the Christian theistic basis.” [7]
This far we have seen the necessity of presupposing God’s revealed truth in order to attain to knowledge of anything - from the chemical composition of water to the way of salvation - does not (1) generate unreasoning arrogance, or (2) deprive unbelievers of a knowledge of the world. A third charge against the epistemological position of Christian presuppositionalism is that it precludes meaningful discussion and successful argumentation with non-Christians. allegedly a presuppositionalist denies that there is any common ground between believers and unbelievers, and thus the apologist would have no point of contact with the unbeliever and no basis upon which he could communicate ideas.
A proper response to this line of attack requires that we take account of (1) the god whom we represent, (2) the sinner to whom we speak, and (3) the context in which we reason with him.
The Lord God is creator of heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1); our understanding should begin here. He has made everything (Exodus 20:11; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 104:24; Isaiah 44:24, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,...” (Colossians 1:16a). All men are His creations, the rich and the poor (Proverbs 22:2). And “ The LORD hath made all things for himself...” (Proverbs 16:4): “... all things were created by him, and for him.”(Colossians 1:16b). His sovereign dominion extends over every single thing in the world. He works all things according to His counsel (Ephesians 1:11), and every minute of the day belongs to Him (Psalm 74:16). He owns everything in creation, and every facet of life should serve Him. “The earth is the LORD'S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” (Psalm 24:1); God declares “whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine” (Job 41:11; cf. Genesis 14:19; Exodus 9:29; Deuteronomy 4:39; 10:14; etc.). As Rahab confessed “The LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.” (Joshua 2:11); thus the greatness, power, glory, victory and majesty are His, for all that are in heaven and earth are His possession (1 Chronicles 29:11). God’s sovereign rule extends to the ends of the earth (Psalm 59:13), over every soul (Ezekiel 18:4), unto all generations (Exodus 15:18; Psalm 10:16; 145:13; 146:10). Therefore, the God who created all things rules over all (Psalm 103:19).
In this case everything in the created realm must serve, and be used to serve, the Lord Creator: “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things...” (Romans 11:36). There is not a square inch of the world, not a split second of time, that is not dependent upon, controlled by, and subservient to God. Hence man is commanded to do everything he does to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31); our bodies are required to be living sacrifices in God’s service (Romans 12:1). Indeed, everything we do, whether in word or deed, comes under His command (Colossians 3:17). Even the use of our reason and minds must be according to God’s direction and for His glory (2 Corinthians 10:5), for His sovereign rule is inclusive of the areas of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). So we see that quite literally in all things God is to be glorified (1 Peter 4:11). Because everything and every area is created and ruled by God and nothing is exempted from the requirement to be consecrated, or set apart, unto Him - we must be hold in “all manner of living” (1 Peter 1:15).
The conclusion of this line of thought is forcefully evident: there can be no neutral ground between believer and unbeliever, between obedience and rebellion, between respecting and abusing that which belongs to God (i.e. everything). “No man can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24); “He that is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30). Therefore, there is no area in the world, in thought, in word, or in deed which is irrelevant, indifferent, or neutral toward God and His demands. The Christian must recognize this fact as he deals with the unbeliever. There is no subject matter that he can discuss which is devoid of bearing upon the religious question or which is free of religious commitment. No “demilitarized” zone exists between the camp of unbelief and the forces obedient to Christ. God owns everything or nothing. Every area of life and every fact are what they are because of God’s sovereign decree, and so there is no place a man can flee in order to escape the influence, control, and requirements of God. In God’s world neutrality is impossible.
Furthermore, not only has God created all things for Himself, and not only does He rule over every area, but He persistently and universally reveals Himself to all men. God has never left Himself without a witness (Acts 14:17). No man can claim ignorance of his Creator, for God himself has made what can be known of Him manifest to every man (Romans 1:19). IN deed His invisible attributes are clearly perceived through the created world (Romans 1:20). Here again, then, we must conclude that there can be no neutral ground, no area which fails to exert revelational pressure upon the sinner. Wherever he looks the sinner finds himself confronted by the God with whom he has to. There cannot be a safety zone where the sinner can flee for refuge. If there were, the sinner would stay there permanently to escape his Maker. But there is no escape from God (Psalm 139:7-8).
Thus the Christian should be striving to bring unbelieving thinkers to a full realization of God’s extensive claim upon them. The universally sustaining, universally reining, universally revealing God of the universe has not, and cannot, afford the creation of even the slightest area of neutrality. Consequently, the believer is wrong to seek (and presume to find) a subject matter that will not challenge the unbeliever with the presuppositional demands we have discussed. The hope that such a neutral topic or fact could become the starting point for an argument which progressively convinces the unbeliever of the truth of God’s word (by inches) is futile. Christ is the Lord, even in the world of thought. No fact, no area of knowledge or wisdom, fails to drive home His requirements and manifest His sovereign control. The starting point for understanding is not neutrality but reverence for the Lord.
The foregoing considerations not only establish that there is no neutral ground between believers and unbelievers, but also that there is ever present common ground between the believer and the unbeliever. What must be kept in mind is that this common ground is God’s ground. All men have in common the world created by God, controlled by God, and constantly revealing God. In this case, every area of life or any fact can be used as a point of contact. The denial of neutrality secures, rather than destroys, commonality.
Coming to the question of common ground with the unbeliever, we have first considered the God whom we represent. Since God is the creator of all things, since His sovereignty controls every event, and since He clearly reveals Himself in every fact of the created order, it is utterly impossible that there should be any neutral ground, any territory or facet of reality where man is not confronted with the claims of God, any area of knowledge where the theological issue is inconsequential. Yet this perspective guarantees that there is common ground of a metaphysical nature. The whole world, the created realm, and public history, constitute commonality between the Christian and the non-Christian. But this common ground is not neutral ground. There is now nowhere to stand in the world - even the world of thought - that is not God’s territory.
In addition, to considering the God whom we represent, we must take cognizance of the person to whom we speak. In particular we must recognize the noetic effects of sin. The fall of man had drastic results in the world of thought; even the use of man’s reasoning ability become depraved and frustrating. The whole creation was made subject to vanity (Romans 8:20), thus bringing confusion, moral corruption overcame man’s thoughts (Genesis 6:5)., so that the evil use of man’s mind became exhaustive, continual, and inescapable. Man unrighteously suppresses the truth in order to embrace the lie (Romans 1:18, 25). In its pseudo-wisdom the world refuses to know God (1 Corinthians 1:21), for Satan has blinded the minds of men (2 Corinthians 4:4). Man uses his reason, not to glorify God and advance His kingdom, but to rise up in arrogant opposition to the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5).
“When we say that sin is ethical, we do not mean however, that sin involved only the will of man and not also his intellect. Sin involved every aspect of man’s personality. All of man’s reactions in every relation in which God had set him were ethical and not merely intellectual; the intellectual itself is ethical.” [8]
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion John Calvin very pointedly remarked that philosophers need to see that man is corrupt in every aspect of his being - that the fall pertains to man’s mental operations as much as to his volition and emotions.
Of course, this points up why we cannot aim to find common ground in the unbeliever’s interpretation or self-conscious understanding of things, whether they be the laws of logic, the facts of history, or the experiences of human personality. The non-Christian seeks to suppress the truth, to distort it in to a naturalistic scheme, to preclude the interpretation of the God who makes things and events what they are (determining the end from the beginning, Isaiah 46:10). The Christian scholar cannot find anything beyond formal agreement, he cannot locate a genuine common understanding, in the unbeliever;s words and opinions. Specifically, and very much at the heart of the disagreements with the unbelieving scholars or thinkers, we should se that the unbeliever has an incorrect diagnosis of his situation and of his own person. The non-Christian thinks that his thinking process is normal. He thinks that his mind is the final court of appeal in all matters of knowledge. He tales himself to be the reference point of all interpretation of the facts. That is, he has epistemologically become a law unto himself: autonomous.
Consequently, the depravity and alleged autonomy of man’s thinking prevent the regenerate Christian from seeking common ground in the unbeliever’s self-conscious and admitted outlook on anything. Rather than agreeing with the sinners conception, ordering, or evaluation of his experience, the Christian seeks his repentance - repentance in the world of thought. Our approach should be that of Isaiah 55:7, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thought: and let him return to the Lord.” A dying patient may require surgery and yet dread it, thereby self-deluding himself into thinking that his condition only calls for a band-aid. A doctor who accepted his patient’s conception of himself and his condition would not only be a quack, he would show absolutely no concern for the patient’s true health and recovery. So also, the Christian scholar who genuinely desires the spiritual reclamation of the unregenerate thinker must not allow the unbeliever to diagnose his own condition and thoughts and then prescribe an insufficient cure. The unregenerate thinker does not merely need a band-aid of additional information; he needs the major internal surgery of regeneration. He needs to forsake his thoughts and be renewed in knowledge after the image of is creator (Colossians. 3:10).
However, in denying common ground in the area of the non-Christian’s autonomous interpretation of experience, the presuppositionalist does not teach that he has no point of contact with the unbeliever. The fact that the unbeliever is wrong in his self-conscious interpretive efforts does not mean that he and the Christian are (epistemologically speaking) like ships passing in the dark. For there is something of great significance in common between the believer and unbeliever; they are both, irrespective of their saved and lost conditions, both the creaturely image of God. While the unregenerate needs to be renewed with respect to it, the image of God remains his. Man cannot cease being man, and to be man is to be God’s image. Man is the finite replica of God, being like Him in every respect that is appropriate for the creature to resemble his Creator. Hereby no man can escape the face of God, for God’s image is carried along with man wherever he goes - even into Hades. Therefore, the believer, the believer can find point of contact in his discussion with unbelievers deep down inside them. Creation establishes forever that no man is beyond the touch of God’s revelation; men have been created with the capacity to understand and recognize their Maker’s voice. Van Til says that we are:
“... assured of a point of contact in the fact that every man is made in the image of God and has impressed upon him the law of God. In the fact alone (we) may rest secure with respect to the point of contact problem. For that fact makes men always accessible to God... Only by thus finding the point of contact in man’s sence of deity that lies underneath his own conception of self-consciousness as ultimate can we be both true to Scripture and effective in reasoning with the natural man.” [9]
We have seen, then, thus far that presuppositionalism takes seriously doctrines of creation, God’s sovereignty, natural revelation, man’s creation as God’s image, and total depravity. Presuppositionalism holds that there is definitely a realm of common ground between the believer’s and unbeliever’s ground (which is metaphysical in nature, not epistemological) but that ground is not neutral ground.
|
|
