Marcus Wolford

ST 501
Dr. Michael Horton
12/03/2010

Metaphysical but not Ethical: The question of common

ground in Van Til’s Apologetics

Introduction

Apologetics is primarily about setting apart Christ as Lord (1 peter 3:15

NIV). This passage in 1 Peter is the most cited scripture used in reference to

our defense of the Christian faith, however, it is usually heard quoted as

starting with, “always be prepared to give an answer…”, thereby completely

missing the purpose of apologetics. Our goal as Christians in defense of our

faith is to proclaim the truthfulness of the claim that Jesus Christ is Lord. In

other words, we are simply called to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul

is the man we know best as being the evangelist to the Gentiles, proclaimer

of the truth to the Roman Empire, and shepherd to the churches, however,

he was also a faithful apologist when challenged by his opponents. While

imprisoned he encouraged the church of Philipi, “I hold you in my heart, for

you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the

defense and confirmation of the gospel;” and in verse 16 he states the

reason he is in his chains, “I am put here for the defense of the gospel.”1

Cornelius Van Til, who is known as being the father of presuppositional

apologetics, continuously stressed this point, that in our defense of the

1 Philippians 1:7; 16 ESV. All scripture quotations that follow will be from the ESV unless
stated otherwise.

1
Gospel we must proclaim Christ as Lord from the very beginning of our

defense. An alternative method, which is typically termed Classical

Apologetics, begins the discussion of God and the world on a neutral

common ground and through a rationalist formula eventually leading the

sinner to the Truth of Christ’s Lordship. Van Til strongly opposed any kind of

neutrality of belief concerning God and man, and emphasized that one’s

ultimate truth or authority must also determine and be openly expressed in

their foundation or premises for that ultimate authority. Van Til stressed that

there was a great ethical and epistemological antithesis between the

believer and the unbeliever, which was grounded in a common metaphysical

relationship. The point of difference is a question of authority, which stems

from ones ethics. Christians believe that they are sinful creatures

disobedient to God in Adam, and made obedient through faith in Christ,

thereby dependent upon the sovereign Triune God of the Bible who is their

ultimate authority. Unbelievers hold that they are not sinful, are

autonomous and not dependent on God, thereby setting themselves up in

place of God as the ultimate authority and therefore capable of rightly

interpreting truth for themselves. The current paper will be in support of Van

Til’s argument for the common ground or point of reference with the

unbeliever, which is metaphysical, by also showing the great ethical

antithesis.

Ethics and Epistemology

2
Engaging in a defense of the faith will automatically bring up obvious

differences between a believer and unbeliever, however the point Van Til

made is that ethically speaking they have absolutely nothing in common.

When Satan set the trap of autonomy man took the bait and brought sin into

the world. From that point on, God put enmity between believers and

unbelievers. From the earliest evidence of the covenant of Grace, we see

God laying out the antithesis in the protoevangelium, “I will put enmity

between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). God

was separating his people who would follow in the line of Abraham, through

Abraham’s seed, which is the Messiah, from those who are the offspring of

the serpent, literally children of the Devil (John 8:44). If the walls of this

antithesis were to be torn down, the very message of Christ would lose all

meaning. Christ came to save sinners, specifically the children of the

woman, the children of Abraham (Gal. 3:16,29). Satan’s chief tactic of

temptation is for man to lose dependence on God for all knowledge of life by

putting man in the position of God as autonomous thereby capable of being

the primary judge and interpreter of all things. Satan is very clever, yet at

the same time very consistent and predictable in his temptations and is

currently tempting believers to rid themselves of this antithesis between

believer and unbeliever. Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to stand fast in

their commitment to Christ by keeping themselves clean from fellowship with

the seed of the serpent, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For

3
what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has

light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion

does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple

of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:14-16) All of Paul’s rhetorical questions are

answered with a resounding, nothing! Jesus himself said that he came to

bring a divisive sword between families (Matt. 10:34), and proclaimed all

those who were not with him were against him (Matt. 12:30), because no

man can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24).

Cornelius Van Til took an ethical antithesis to also mean an

epistemological antithesis as he states in Defense of the Faith, “That all men

have all things in common metaphysically and psychologically was definitely

asserted, and further, that the natural man has epistemologically nothing in

common with the Christian. And this latter assertion was qualified by saying

that this is so only in principle.”2 Van Til’s epistemology as applied to the

unbeliever is what has been most twisted, confused, and disagreed upon.

He rightly held that our epistemology is grounded and controlled by our

ethics. The function of the mind and the corruption of the heart cannot be

separated. The reformed doctrine of total depravity is total-person

depravity.3 Paul the great apologist seems to always make a connection

2 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4 ed., ed. K. Scott Oliphint (New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2008),
191.

3 Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton, eds., Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed
Apologetics (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 2007), 158.

4
between the hostility of sinners before a holy God and their ability to think:

“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit

to God's law; indeed, it cannot” (Rom. 8:7 ), and in Col. 1:21, “[a]nd you, who

once were alienated and hostile in mind [epistemology], doing evil [ethics]

deeds” (Col 1:21).4

It may be useful to have a ready definition of Epistemology for a better

understanding of Van Til’s thought. “The word epistemology, which derives

from the Greek words episteme and logos, means ‘a discourse on (or study

of) knowledge.’”5 Even if you asked a group of people what they mean when

they say, “I know something…”, you might get a collection of different

answers. Knowledge in the intellectual sense is a “subcategory of belief: to

know something is, at least, to believe it.”6 What good is knowing something

if someone else also knows something contrary to what you know, because

you both cannot be right, therefore someone must not have truly known

what they proclaimed to know. “So then, instances of knowing are instances

of believing, but one can know a proposition only if it is true.”7 Christians

4 Emphasis added with brackets. This scripture is used to emphasize the corruption of our
thinking, which is evidenced through our visible evil deeds.

5 Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis(Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 1998), 158.

6 Ibid., 159.

7 Ibid., 162.

5
proclaim to know through justified belief the truth of God as portrayed in the

Bible.

Van Til never questions if the unbeliever has the ability to use reason, or

evaluate the facts of this universe. He rather boldly states that the

unbeliever can never use reason reasonably, and his intelligence is always

unintelligible. So the unbeliever cannot use any of his faculties rightly in

interpreting God’s natural revelation in Creation because he is

simultaneously hostile to the one who created them. At this point it must be

contended that sin effects the whole man including his ability to reason,

which is called the noetic effect of sin. Sin produces a conceptual warfare,

and as John Frame puts it, “the unbeliever’s problem is first ethical, and only

secondarily intellectual. His intellectual problems stem from his ethical

unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence. Unbelief distorts human

thought.”8 The unbeliever is a walking epistemic failure, because he fails to

begin with the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of all wisdom and

knowledge (Psalm 110:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10; 15:33). We must remember what

the starting point for interpreting revelation between a believer and

unbeliever, even if through a common set of tools (reason), is completely

antithetical. For the believer the ultimate authority is God, therefore

Christians think God’s thoughts after him. Yet the unbeliever through sin,

has set himself up as the ultimate authority, and therefore has made himself

8 William Lane Craig et al., Five Views On Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2000),
211.

6
Judge and the starting point for interpretation. Someone who thinks

autonomously cannot interpret revelation accurately, which is dependent on

an autonomous God. In order for one to rightly interpret the facts, they must

rightly interpret themselves, and it is not likely that anyone will intellectually

assume to be a sinner and non-sinner at the same time. Calvin began his

Institutes with this double aspect of knowledge that must be actualized in

order for knowledge to be true consistent knowledge when he said, “Without

knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God. Nearly all the wisdom we

possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the

knowledge of God and of ourselves.”9 Therefore as the Bible says, there is

only Godly wisdom and worldly wisdom, for sin has corrupted the natural

man, making him “futile in his thinking”(Rom. 1:21).

Van Til was simply being consistent with his reformed theology, by objecting

to any neutrality with the believer and maintaining that sin effect’s the whole

man. This is consistent with Westminster’s Larger Catechism, as question 28

reads, “What are the punishments of sin in this world? A. The punishments

of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate

sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile

affections…” We should therefore stand strong with Van Til in our defense of

the faith, by never validating the unbeliever in his ability to rightly determine

the ultimate truth of all things.

9 John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (2 Volume Set), 1559 translation ed., ed. John T. McNeill
(London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 35.

7
Common Ground and the Unbelievers Struggle

The common ground between the believer and unbeliever is ultimately

metaphysical, as was quoted above, “That all men have all things in common

metaphysically and psychologically was definitely asserted…”10 Van Til does

not use the word “psychological” as it is commonly used today in the

scientific field of psychology, he simply means the inner soul of man made in

the image of God.11 Ultimately God is the common ground, because he

created all things, including the hostile rebels who deny him.

The common connection or underlying contact point with the unbeliever is

grounded in the first 4 words of the Bible, “In the beginning, God” (Gen. 1:1).

The story of creation then followed according to God’s plan by making man

in his image (Gen 1:26-27). God created man covenantally, so he could

communicate to man his love and righteous requirements for life. Adam was

the representative man and head of the entire human race, “by which God

requiring of man the perfect obedience of the law of works promised him, if

obedient, eternal life in heaven, but threatened him if he transgressed with

eternal death; and on his part man promised perfect obedience to God’s

requirements.”12 Upon the first testing of Adam’s righteousness, he fails, and

plunges everyone who comes from him into a fallen state. Therefore
10 Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 191.

11 Ibid., 190.

12 Michael Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, Reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 83-84.

8
according to God’s revealed word, all people are born into a broken covenant

in Adam (Rom. 5:15-19) with the inability to keep the covenant, yet still

remain under its obligations.

The primary point of commonality is that all people are both in Adam, and

created in God’s image. All people are covenant breakers, but the believer

through the grace of God has become a covenant keeper through Christ,

while the unbeliever in his hostility, rejects Christ, and remains a covenant

breaker before God. Scott Oliphant points out that he is unsatisfied with the

term presuppositional apologetics, because of its confusing terminology, and

prefers instead the term covenantal apologetics based upon this primary

point of contact within the covenant of works.13

Van Til contends that through their being created in God’s image, still being

under a covenantal relationship with God of which they cannot avoid, and by

seeing God revealed everywhere within general revelation, unbelievers

ultimately know the reality and truth of the triune God of scripture.14

Herman Bavinck states this truth so eloquently,

All knowledge of God rests on revelation. Though we can never

know God in the full richness of his being, he is known to all
people through his revelation in creation, the theater of his glory.
The world is never godless. In the end there are no atheists;
there is only argument about the nature of God. The recognition

13 Scott Oliphint, “Presuppositionalism,” K. Scott Oliphint Writings, http://mysite.verizon.net/oliphint/Writings/A

%20Covenantal%20Apologetic.htm (accessed December 2, 2010).

14 Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 176.

9
 is universal of a power greater than human beings themselves,
to whom they owe piety.15

This unity of man in God’s image, in Adam, and in covenant, creates the

point of contact and the only point of contact by which a Christian speaks to

an unbeliever. The covenant breaker should be confronted with this reality,

that they must give an account for their lives as being subject to the law of

God. The preacher of Hebrews makes God’s word clear that “no creature is

hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to

whom we must give account” (Heb 4:13).

There is a terrifying struggle and battle that is going on in the unbeliever as

he tries to simultaneously deny God and exalt himself as autonomous while

at the same time he possesses true knowledge of the God he is denying.

This is made clear through perhaps the most cited scripture that Van Til

appeals to, Romans 1:18-21, which says,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all

ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their
unrighteousness suppress the truth. 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. For although they knew God, they did not honor
him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their
thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This scripture sets forth both the antithesis and commonality in apologetics.

The commonality is that God is clearly known through his invisible attributes,

15 Herman Bavinck, God and Creation, vol. 2 of Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic,
2004), 53.

10
and the antithesis is that unbelievers are constantly at work in suppressing

this truth by means of their sin/unrighteousness. This is a very troubling

experience and position, which the unbeliever has put himself in, because he

is in constant denial of the foundation by which he stands. In fact, the

unbeliever is in a type of Romans 7 suppression of the old man constantly at

work in him, similar to our constant suppression of our old man. The

unbeliever is constantly at war in his members with his old man, which is the

pre-fall Adam or simply the image of God within him. This explains his ability

to do what may naturally look “good” while at the same time is carried out

with sinful, autonomous motives. The unbeliever will never be completely

successful in his suppression of his old man (image of God) because if he

were, he would cease to exist. In the same way, on this side of Glory

Christians will never be completely successful in suppressing their old man.16

The old man of the unbeliever knows and bears testimony to him is a

rebel to a Holy God, living irrationally as a covenant breaker, because the

foundation upon which he lives is the very thing he denies. Because there is

this denial of self, and suppression of the truth upon which he stands17, he is

unable to interpret anything correctly. His presuppositions have replaced the

autonomous, sovereign God with man as autonomous and sovereign. With

16 David Turner, “Cornelius van Til and Romans 1:18-21,” Grace Theological Journal 2, no. 1 (1981): 45-58.

17 Romans 1:18-21

11
man as the ultimate reference point nothing can make sense or correctly be

judged.

Metaphysically man has a foundation to stand on, and reason to work with,

however, because of their sinful rebellion, they epistemologically wipe out

their own foundation leaving them running away from God, using a body God

created, on a road God built, within the world God made. As Greg Bahsen

put it,

It now appears that the complexity and confusion that

characterize the unbeliever’s knowledge of God are the result of
an internal contradiction or tension in the unbeliever himself –
one which he is unwilling to recognize or confess, lest his guilt
before God become evident. He lives out of two conflicting
frameworks of thought or two mind-sets…The unbeliever is a
living contradiction.18

So our common ground or point of reference when speaking to the

unbeliever is directly to the reason for this tension. This reason, which has

been demonstrated, is the image of God or the old man that is at war with

the rebel sinner. Our common ground in other words is the unbeliever’s old

man.

Objections from Classical Apologists

The primary disagreement of common ground is formulated upon a natural

theology, which necessarily finds its common ground on epistemology or

reason. Among a few of the proponents of this position are: Stuart Hacket,

Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis,

18 Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, 452.

12
Thomas Aquinas and a majority of Roman Catholics. This position must

maintain that the unbeliever has a “legitimate autonomy of reason.”19 Man

has the ability to rightly determine the nature of God based upon natural

capacities of “sense perception, rational self-evidence, and common modes

of reasoning” all apart from any special revelation.20 These natural

capacities form the common ground between the believer and unbeliever.

One of the fathers of this use of natural theology is Thomas Aquinas. He

believed that believers were quantitatively different then unbelievers, in that

they had more knowledge. This made for Aquinas, special revelation

“primarily supplementative” to general revelation.21 Classical apologists

assume that “man’s reasoning is epistemologically intelligible in itself,”

thereby they typically start with neutral claims based on reason, which then

moves the sinner to agree upon some form of “god”.22 Then only after this

has been established, the apologist begins to give theistic arguments for the

Christian God.23 This is clearly seen in Aquinas’s 5 ways, where he lays out

five proofs or probable arguments for God’s existence. Aquinas purposefully

19 Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 180.

20 Lane Craig, Five Views, 44.

21 Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, 194.

22 Ibid., 531.

23 Ibid.

13
does this before he demonstrates any attributes of God. It is baffling to think

how one could argue for a god that has no attributes. This would be no

better then convincing someone of the Greeks unknown God from Acts 17,

which is no god at all. So much for setting Christ apart as Lord as the

foundation for our defense. In responding to Aquinas’ proofs, Bavinck

silences those who want to begin with a God who has no attributes,

The proofs may augment and strengthen our faith, but they do
not serve as its grounds. They are, rather, the consequences,
the products of faith’s observation of the world. The proofs do
not induce faith, and objections against them do not wreck it.
They are, instead, testimonies by which God is able to strengthen
already-given faith.24

Responding to the cosmological argument Bavinck says, “But whether this

cause is transcendent or merely immanent, personal or impersonal,

conscious or unconscious, has not in any way been settled by the

argument.”25 In Classical Apologetics, their conclusions or foundational

theology are nowhere to be found within their premises, because of course,

they must first find a common ground with the unbeliever. To do this, as

Bahnsen says, is to assume “that there can be an interpretation of the

natural revelation of God with which both believers and unbelievers are in

basic agreement.”26

24 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 55-56.

25 Ibid., 82.

26 Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, 194.

14
The Christian who hopes to persuade the covenant breaker that there is

salvation in believing in the covenant keeper, should never have

epistemological fellowship with the unbeliever for this will give him validity in

his ability to think rationally as the autonomous ultimate reference point of

interpretation. RC Sproul seems to leave his theology at the doorstep of

apologetics when he limits sins effects on the mind in saying, “Something is

wrong with the heart – not the mind.”27 “The mind itself is not reprobate.”28

Sproul is found with a Tulip in his hands that is losing its petals, when

forgetting the total depravity of the sinner and question 28 of his own

confession. Finding a rational neutral ground for the sake of eventually

leading someone to the gospel, will outright deny the person’s genuine need

for the gospel. If we appeal to the natural man’s ability to reason proofs for

God’s existence, we are thus not even appealing to him as an unbeliever.

Holding this kind of neutral ground forces the Christian to do one of two

things, he either denies his own presuppositions to find commonality, or he

denies the unbelievers presuppositions to find commonality; in either case,

the believer will be denying God’s truth. The solution is for the Christian to

treat the unbeliever like he really is an unbeliever. To call someone an

unbeliever is to literally say that they are not-believing. However the

question needs to be asked, what are we saying they are not believing in? It

27 John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley and R.C. Sproul, Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1984), 242.

28 Ibid., 244.

15
is not that the unbeliever is simply not believing in a general un-moved

mover “god”, but the truth is that all non-Christians are not-believing in the

Triune God of the Christian scriptures who created them in his own image.

Therefore the apologist should actually appeal to the unbeliever on the basis

of what he does not believe in. Van Til’s point holds strong ground, that

there cannot be any intellectual handshaking when it comes to correctly

interpreting God’s revelation. The Christian faith must be presupposed from

the beginning of the defense of the Gospel, because the Christian

foundations are built with the precise content that it is proclaiming to hold

up.

Conclusion

The common ground between the believer and unbeliever is ultimately only

metaphysical through covenant and the creation of man as image bearer,

while maintaining the great antithetical chasm of ethics, which in turn

directly effects epistemology. The apologist must set “Christ apart as Lord”

(1 Pet. 3:15 NIV) from the first word of any conversation, by also taking

“every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Christians must

maintain a strong ethical antithesis, so they may adequately show the

irrationality of the unbeliever in accord with the metaphysical common

ground. The apologist should try to reveal the intellectual rebellion and not

allow the unbeliever to be successful in his attempts to interpret the truth,

16
otherwise a neutral ground will appeal to the autonomous self as if it really

existed and all attempts of defense will be futile.29

Presuppositional apologetics is prophetic in that it shows the unbeliever what

the Holy Sprit will do if he accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and covenant keeper.

The attempt is to reveal that the foundation by which he stands on and is

wholly dependent on, is the Triune God. The apologist holds that spiritual

blindness results in an epistemic failure of recognizing the pre-conditions for

all things. A real acknowledgment of the truth does not come through a

rational argument for God’s existence, but is when the sinner admits that he

is a covenant breaker, and this can only be done through repentance and

faith in Christ. For who would acknowledge themselves to be covenant

breakers unless they were also simultaneously covenant keepers through

Christ’s obedient work. In the same way, there is only “now no

condemnation for those who are in Christ,” when those sinners confess and

realize they deserve condemnation.30 The sinner needs to be confronted

with his open rebellion against the God who created him. This must be done

by recognizing the common ground in the Creator on which to appeal, and

the ethical antithesis on which to sound the attack of moral culpability.

29 Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, 440.

30 Romans 8:1

17
18