exploring approaches to apologetics ca513 o apologetics t ......in our last session, we had begun...

Exploring Approaches to Apologetics

Transcript - CA513 Exploring Approaches to Apologetics © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 12

LESSON 18 of 24CA513

The Verificational Approach III

Exploring Approaches to Apologetics

Think with me of Paul’s admonition to Timothy, 2 Timothy, chapter 2, “Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words. It is of no value and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Our God we pray that You as the source of all truth will illumine our minds and enable us to receive what is true from our experience and from Your Word. We pray that you’ll enable us to present that truth effectively to people who have lost the key to reality, and we thank you in Jesus name, amen.

In our last session, we had begun considering the impact of Edward John Carnell’s approach to apologetics in a number of different ways. We mentioned Oliver Barclay’s use of it in ethics and David Dye’s Faith and the Physical World. Bernard Ramm applied the verificational approach in his Protestant Christian Evidences, and Francis Schaeffer used it in his ministry to young people who had gone to Europe in the sixties and seventies. Os Guinness is another who employs the verificational approach. He asks, “Can the truth claims of historic Christianity be verified? Is there a God who is truly there who speaks and who speaks clearly?”

Reminiscent of Carnell’s analysis, Guinness verifies the claims of a general revelation in nature and in people by asking, “Which view of humanity best accords with the way we must live to be human? Which proposal provides a sufficient basis for living the way all people must live for life to be meaningful?” Then he tests the claims of special revelation in Christ and the Bible. “If what the Bible says is true, it is open to scrutiny, to examination, to falsification. No one is asked to believe in it as anything other than credible.” Similarly reminiscent of Carnell’s view of faith as the resting of the mind on the sufficiency of the evidence, Guinness concludes that “The evidence for Christian truth is not

Gordon Lewis, Ph.D. Experience: Senior Professor of

Christian and Historical Theology, Denver Seminary, Colorado.



2 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

exhaustive, but it is sufficient.”

Colin Chapman’s apologetic works start not with the lowest common denominator of all views of Christianity, but biblical Christianity. God has revealed the truth about Himself, the universe, and man. The truth He has revealed is open to verification. Henry T. Close in his Reasons for Our Faith, dedicates it to Edward John Carnell, Christian scholar and stimulating teacher to whom I owe my interest in this subject. Colin Brown, in his brief treatment of philosophy and the Christian faith, suggested a new type of natural theology in which the Christian faith could be presented as a hypothesis. It suggests explanations for phenomena which are otherwise inexplicable. It makes sense of what at first seems senseless. It gives wholeness to life which is missing in other views, and this is so whether we look at the universe in general or at personal experience of life. The Bible does provide a key which gives coherence and meaning to life as a whole.

Alan Richardson, who earlier wrote in apologetics, displays a method of determining the meaning of the New Testament as a whole, remarkably similar to Carnell’s. Having mentioned a flat descriptive approach to New Testament and one based on presuppositions, Richardson explains, “The way in which one attempts to state the theology of the New Testament in this third approach is by the framing of a hypothesis, whether consciously or unconsciously, and then testing it by continual checking with the New Testament documents and other relevant evidence from the period.” This is in fact the way in which historical, critical interpretation is done nowadays in every field of historical reconstruction. It necessarily involves a personal or subjective element, but this is now seen to be unavoidable as the illusion of scientific or presuppositionless history recedes. It does not, however, involve an absolute subjectivism or historical relativism for the pursuit of history as humane science involves the conviction that one historical interpretation can be rationally shown to be better than another. Each hypothesis must be evaluated by the evidence available.

Carnell’s critical method has been influential in my own writing in many ways. In apologetics, my testing Christianity’s truth claims compares six approaches to defending the truth of evangelical Christianity; it concludes that Carnell’s way of knowing incorporates the strengths of the other views while avoiding their weaknesses. I have attempted to apply a Carnellian verificational approach to theological issues in Decide for Yourself, a theological



3 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

workbook which has been used by over 100,000 people. And in a three-volume work entitled Integrative Theology, the method is adapted to theological issues with greater thoroughness. After one) defining the problem, my colleague, Bruce Demarest, two) surveys the alternative hypotheses in historical and contemporary theology, and three) tests their explanatory power in terms of the relevant data exegeted from the primary sources of Christian theology, the Old and New Testaments. Then I, point four, propose a systematic formulation that integrates the strengths of the elements and the alternatives that have biblical support, and five ) engage in apologetic interaction with those that do not and six) explore the relevance of the conviction for life and ministry.

In these ways we seek to integrate historical, biblical, systematic, apologetic, and practical theology. Readers have seen similarities to Bernard Lonergan’s Method in Theology, which includes eight functions in doing theology and collaborative activity of more than one scholar to work on them. Carnell’s concern to integrate both logical and existential categories influenced my essay entitled, “Categories in Collision.” In it, I challenged exclusivity in the use of Bruce Larson’s relational theology, or Gerrit Berkouwer’s functional categories, Telicka’s existential categories and John Bright’s biblical categories.

The verificational method also provides a way to break out of hermeneutical circles. With due recognition of the presuppositions and subjectivity involved, biblical interpreters from different commitments using a verificational approach can communicate. On the basis of points of contact, they can break out of circular reasoning and accept those hypotheses with the highest measure of objective validity. And in addressing the issues of Relativism for the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, a critical method adapted from Carnell contributed significantly. Again, the approach can be seen in my chapter on the “Neibuhr’s Relativism, Relationalism, and Contextualization,” and an adaptation of Carnell’s method helped also in my Three Sides to Every Story, relating the absolutes of general and special revelation to relativists.

In evaluating the proposals of higher criticism, the verificational method calls for a fair statement of alternative proposals and some objectivity in forming conclusions by the many checks and balances of the three-fold criterion of truth. Invited to address a conference on demon possession sponsored by the Christian Medical Society at Notre Dame, the verificational method became useful for discerning spirits. In a particular test case,



4 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

the hypotheses that spirits are or are not immediately involved need to be critically tested by the criteria of truth. The criteria of systematic consistency effectively tests claims for contemporary prophets and alleged revelations. And when the public media repeated the claim that transcendental meditation was compatible with Christian worship, I compared the Maharishi’s and Christian hypotheses of humanity’s source, its basic problems, spiritual leaders, and what it means to experience God and the way to experience God. Readers of my What Everyone Should Know About Transcendental Meditation judge for themselves whether these hypotheses are consistent or contradictory of one another. A verificational method is adaptable to numerous fields and issues because realistic in recognizing presuppositions and subjectivity. But its criteria supply many checks and balances on unwarranted religious claims and facilitate moving toward decision-making with some degree of objective validity. The impact of a method of problem-solving like Carnell’s will continue to be felt so long as discerning people distinguish truth from error concerning upright living in the real world.

So much for my survey of Carnell’s life and method in that introductory fashion. Since I favor that view, I would like now to interact with one who has been Carnell’s strongest opponent. What does Cornelius Van Til have to say about the approach of Carnell’s verificationalism? Van Til charges that Carnell’s method of defending the Christian faith actually requires the destruction of Christianity. Carnell invites the uncommitted to test Christianity’s truth claims before giving themselves to Christ. Van Til thinks that invitation encourages human independence of God. It allegedly gives people a temporary impression of their own autonomy. Although Carnell intends to defend Orthodox doctrines of God’s sovereignty, his method makes man to stand in judgment upon God, lest it leads to the rejection of the whole body of his Christian beliefs.

Van Til’s language is extremely strong and his opposition publically to Carnell, his former student, is controversial indeed. Carnell has not made similar charges against Van Til’s apologetic in his books, but from Carnell’s perspective Van Til’s method is appropriate for theology, but not apologetics. Van Til’s declared purpose is to challenge non-Christian thinking and living by presenting Christ to people without compromise. Two steps are involved; he sets forth the gospel of grace in terms of theology, and he presents his gospel to the natural man in order that he might be saved. From beginning to end, Van Til’s method assumes Christianity’s truth;



5 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

it does not defend it. As Carnell sees it, statement and defense are not the same thing; statement draws on theology; defense draws on apologetics. Has Van Til a defense of the faith? If not, he has advertised one, but left the faith defenseless.

Well, such serious charges are by no means merely academic. Generations of students are being trained to feel these deep differences. At stake is the shape of their ministries to outsiders and the potential disruption of churches, denominations, and schools. To help stimulate the long, hard thinking these divisive issues necessitate, I ask your consideration of the following thoughts. An analysis of Van Til’s charges against Carnell’s methodology may remove unnecessary suspicion and promote increased understanding of similarities and differences. The comparison in contrast is focused upon three aspects of apologetic method: The logical starting point, the points of contact with non-Christians, and the criterion of truth.

What about the logical starting point in these two thinkers? Van Til takes his underlying methodological procedure from idealists such as Hagel, Bradley, and Bernard Bosanquet. They think, and we believe think correctly, he says “that every appeal made to bare fact is unintelligible. Every fact must stand in relation to other facts, or it means nothing to anyone.” The system Van Til brings to factual data involves two presuppositions—one epistemological and the other metaphysical. As you recall, the epistemological presupposition asserts the infallible truth of the Bible as God’s Word written. Metaphysically, he assumes the existence of the triune God disclosed in Scripture. Combing them, a truly Protestant apologetic must make its beginning from the presupposition that the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—speaks to him with absolute authority in Scripture.

In contrast, Van Til thinks that Carnell starts not with God, but with autonomous man. That charge is the major premise of Van Til’s criticisms in the case for Calvinism of Carnell’s method. His method is to start with people as autonomous. Starting from man as autonomous, Carnell worked up a modern form of natural theology under the guise of common grace. Similarly, we now note, starting with the idea of human autonomy, Carnell again caters to the idea that God is identical with the projective ideals of the good man.

Is Van Til’s judgment on Carnell’s system justified? Carnell agrees that no such thing as brute facts can impress a tabula rasa mind



6 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

and yield the ultimate nature of reality as a whole. “As vigorously as Van Til,” Carnell attacks the empiricist’s starting point of nature. Two extensive chapters of An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, chapter seven and eight, criticize natural theology, empirical proofs for God, and the Thomas analogy of being. Two subsequent chapters defend at length the starting point God. The content of Carnell’s logical starting point is identical to Van Til’s—the triune God of the Bible. Epistemologically, Carnell assumes the Bible as the infallibly inspired Word of God. Revelation without God’s authority behind it is useless. Although Carnell thought the Orthodox label in theology was broad enough to include people who did not hold to complete inerrancy, one of his last contributions to Christianity Today revealed his personal commitment to a Warfieldian view of biblical inerrancy.

Both Van Til and Carnell agree on the content of the Christian apologist’s logical starting point. Unitedly they deny the wisdom of starting with empirical evidence, rational principles, or human witness to an experience of God. Together the insist that Orthodox Christianity will be defended only by starting with a proposition that the triune God of the Bible exists and His written Word is true. How then can Van Til persistently allege that Carnell starts with autonomous people? On the surface it seems that Van Til has intentionally ignored Carnell’s assertions identical to his own, but his charges may be partly due to the difference in Carnell’s manner of starting with the God of the Bible. Carnell asserts the God of the Bible as a hypothesis; whereas, for Van Til it is a presupposition. Carnell’s hypothesis is a tentative conclusion to be accepted only after confirmation by the criterion of systematic consistency. Is Van Til’s presupposition assumed true independent of all considerations of consistency and evidence? It often sounds as though Van Til voluntarily presupposes the truth of Christian claims in a vacuum. In talking with flesh and bones human beings, however, Van Til places himself in the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his argument to show that on such assumptions the facts are not facts and the laws are not laws.

Then Van Til asks the non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument’s sake to show that only upon this basis do facts and laws appear intelligible. Is that so different from Carnell’s invitation to the unbeliever to consider the logical starting point a hypothesis that makes sense of life in terms of intelligent coherence? Van Til’s criteria of intelligibility are to be discussed subsequently. For now, we can conclude that the difference between Carnell. And Van Til can hardly be the verbal



7 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

difference between a presupposition assumed for purpose of argument and a hypothesis assumed for purposes of argument. Part of the reason for Van Til’s charge may stem from a failure to give due importance to Carnell’s distinction between the logical starting point and the synoptic starting point. The synoptic starting point answers the question, “How do you prove the logical starting point?” Its worth is determined by its ability to make good the case for the logical starting point. Having proposed that the God of the Bible exists, Carnell devotes considerable time to the basis on which Christians and non-Christians may even argue about their different logical starting points. What Carnell designates common ground in other contexts, he calls the synoptic starting point in some portions of An Introduction to Christian Apologetics.

To this we turn our attention in order to answer the question of whether Carnell’s view of common ground with non-Christians can justify Van Til’s charges of starting with autonomous human beings. At this point, however, it is necessary to conclude that Van Til’s charges are unjustified in relation to Carnell’s logical starting point. On that issue, Van Til and Carnell are in agreement in content. Both begin ultimately with the triune God of the Bible.

Points of contact with non-Christians. Both Van Til and Carnell also find numerous points of contact with unbelievers. Carnell thinks that all people created in the image of God have certain innate principles of truth, goodness, and beauty. These inner principles differentiate people from brutes, making possible significant speech, assertion, moral judgment, and aesthetic judgment. Common grace enables even the non-Christian to be accountable for the work of the law written on his heart (Romans 2:14-15). Total depravity does not annihilate these God-given principles. They are not human inventions held menacingly over God by autonomous people. They do not make us autonomous, they make us responsible. Fallen people are responsible to live according to truth and morality, but invariably people suppress this truth, but they are inexcusable for doing so. The presence of principles of logic, ethics, and aesthetics does not displace the need for special revelation. Instead, it vividly shows how far short people come of God’s glory and how desperately they need a special revelation of divine grace.

Far from teaching the autonomy of the human intellect, Carnell explicitly teaches its incompetence. “The reason of man in addition to be partially corrupted because of sin is incompetent



8 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

to work out a complete view of God and man. Reason is incompetent to complete a philosophy of life without special revelation from God. As a result of the incompetence of human reason in developing a worldview, no common ground exists with unbelievers metaphysically. Neutrality in metaphysics is impossible,” Carnell says, “One either believes God is the Author and Judge of the universe or he does not. There is no tertium quid or third option.” Carnell adds, “So penetrating is the metaphysical level of meaning that it succeeds in reflecting back upon the lower levels also.”

Likewise, Van Til denies any common ground on the metaphysical level. The natural man beings with himself as autonomous, not God. So Van Til applies atomic power and flame throwers to the very presupposition of the natural person’s ideas with respect to himself. The Christian sees everything from the perspective of the presupposition of the God of the Bible, so Van Til says, “There is no single territory or dimension in which believers and nonbelievers have all things in common.” Even the description of facts in the lowest dimension presupposes a system of metaphysics and epistemology, so there can be no territory of cooperation. Apart from a special revelation in the Bible, as Carnell held, the reason of natural man is incompetent to formulate a true metaphysics.

Does Van Til rule out any points of contact? Not at all; he admits several that are quite similar to Carnell’s. Van Til’s absolute contrast holds only in principle. The non-Christian does have the same formal laws of logic as the Christian. Van Til says, “I do not maintain that Christians operate according to new laws of thought any more than they have new eyes or noses.” The non-Christian uses the gifts of logical reasoning in order to keep down the truth in unrighteousness. The question is not that of the law of contradiction as a formal principle. So Christians may use the language of non-Christian philosophers. Van Til warns that the similarity of wording does not mean identify of meaning. However, in other contexts he admits that the unbeliever may share not only the language, but also much truth. The world may discover much truth without owning Christ as truth. Christ upholds even those who ignore, deny, and oppose Him. A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee. So modern science, modern philosophy, and modern theology may discover much truth.

Although there is nothing in common ultimately, then, the Christian and non-Christian have all things in common



9 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

proximately. Van Til’s points of contact include not only the same laws of logic and the realm of facts proximately, but also relatively speaking much good. Van Til finds in humans principles of truth and goodness similar to Carnell’s. He also has Carnell’s knowledge of the self and of God. All people owe their life and breath to God. To have self-consciousness presupposes God-consciousness. This knowledge of God was undimmed before the Fall; since the Fall it is still inescapable. It is indelibly involved in his awareness of anything whatsoever, but fallen man suppresses his God-consciousness by seeking to interpret himself and his environment apart from God.

Psychologically we have in common this experience of holding the truth in unrighteousness. Morally and spiritually we are all covenant breakers—guilty of not loving God and neighbor—so all are responsible. Deep down in his mind, every man knows that he is the creature of God and responsible to God. Everyone at bottom knows that he is a covenant breaker, but everyone acts and talks as though this were not so.

It seems that Van Til admits points of contact in the human consciousness very similar to Carnell’s: logically, factually, psychologically, morally, and spiritually. Of course, Van Til distinguishes the total difference of the ultimate starting point from the points of contact in the proximate level, but similarly Carnell distinguishes the unique logical starting point of Christians from common ground in the synoptic starting point. Carnell’s method does not differ with Van Til’s when Van Til says, “If then the human consciousness must in the nature of the case always be the proximate starting point. It remains true that God is always the most basic and, therefore, the ultimate or final reference point in human interpretation.” Van Til’s constant charges against Carnell’s methodology cannot fairly be directed against his points of contact. Quite clearly these can be held by Van Til and Carnell without making people autonomous or rulers unto themselves independent of God.

We move then to considerations about the criterion of truth. The precise point of Van Til’s criticism is that Carnell utilizes these points of contact in his apologetic. According to Van Til, non-Christians always use the formal of law of noncontradiction to defend their own autonomy. The non-Christians reason is like a saw used, if used at all, to rebel against the triune God of the Bible. An unbeliever is not even in a position to test the truth of revelation claims. He will certainly find the Christian



10 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

religion incredible(becoming impossible) and the evidence for it inadequate. The unregenerate will always use the elements of truth they possess to support their own human ends rather than God’s glory. “When a man became a sinner,” Van Til says, “he made of himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point.” And it is precisely this presupposition as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy that must be brought into question.

In charging Carnell with reinforcing the autonomy of the non-Christian, Van Til again chooses to ignore Carnell’s logical starting point. Carnell’s hypothesis of the triune God of the Bible challenges human autonomy as much as Van Til’s, but Carnell faces the very real possibility that a person can surrender his autonomy not only to God, but also to the devil. Men also surrender their autonomy to the Unitarian God of the Koran or to the flesh and bones God of the Mormon’s doctrines and covenants. They also surrender their autonomy to the impersonal principles of science and health with key to the Scriptures. Although fallen people cannot construct their own ultimate system, Carnell thinks they can discern between bona fide and counterfeit books in human language claiming to speak for God. The intellect of man is darkened, but it is not extinguished. If this were not so, the mind of man would be quite incompetent to distinguish the voice of God from the voice of the devil.

Were not people in Old Testament times by certain criteria capable of distinguishing true prophets from false prophets? Could not the people of New Testament times employ criteria to distinguish authentic apostles from pseudo apostles? It is all well and good to say that their messages were self-authenticating after the messengers had adequate credentials. Mormons claim the witness of the Holy Spirit to authenticate their sacred writings. The claims that Scripture is self-authenticating does not make it so for any particular individual who does not accredit its writers as spokespeople for God. Its credentials need to be checked. If the claims of Scripture for itself cannot be checked by principles of truth, goodness, and fact, then by what?

Van Til does not completely escape the need to check the Bible’s credentials. He expects the natural person to use reason sufficiently to see the need for a metaphysical starting point. As a rational creature, he can understand that one must either accept the whole of a system of truth or reject the whole of it. He expects the natural person to conclude that it will be impossible



11 of 12

Lesson 18 of 24

to find meaning in anything. By what capacity does the non-Christian entertain meaning? How can he be expected to see this if not by the use of his formal principle of contradiction and coherence with all the proximate truth he does possess? In some way Van Til needs to spell out how it can be made evident to the natural person that Christianity alone gives meaning to life. Until he does, a crucial gap in his methodology leaves the apologist without explicit help in understanding what sort of meaning can be evident to non-Christians.

This reminds me of a joke; two people were arguing about the meaning of one word and finally one said to the other, “What do you mean by mean?” Even in saying, then, that the Christian system can be made evident to the unbeliever, Van Til has made people autonomous. James Dane saw this in reviewing the case for Calvinism. Van Til himself, however, does not escape what he calls the autonomous man. His purpose, he writes, is “to bring the challenge of the Gospel of Christ to modern man because Christianity is modern man’s only hope. However,” he adds, “this cannot be shown to be true unless it be made evident that Christianity not only has its own methodology, but also that only its methodology gives meaning to human life.” In making this evident, Van Til himself appeals to something in man to which the truth of Christianity will hopefully appear evident, and with this Van Til’s autonomous man has returned. Surely Van Til has not made humans autonomous. He has only made us responsible. Similarly, Carnell has not made people autonomous but simply accountable.

Exactly what is Carnell’s test of religious truth claims? He cannot accept sacred writings on the basis of instinct, custom, tradition, feeling, sense perception, intuition, or pragmatism. These criteria endorse contradictory revelations and so must be submitted to a more basic test. Carnell’s criterion of systematic consistency is two-fold, requiring that a proposed truth claim be noncontradictory and fit the facts of internal and external experience. And only then can it be held to correspond to the mind of the God who does not deny Himself and freely orders everything that actually is.

Van Til has much against Carnell’s use of the law of noncontradiction. Both the neo-Orthodox writer Hordern and the liberal writer DeWolf use the laws of logic in order by them to exclude the claims of the God of Christ and Scripture. The fourth book of Aristotle’s metaphysics is for them more authoritative


Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

12 of 12

The Verificational Approach IIILesson 18 of 24

than is the Bible. For this reason, they have argued that God cannot exist in Trinitarian fashion. With the help of fallacious guilt by association, Van Til concludes that Carnell must make the rational person to stand above revelation in autonomous freedom. As Carnell employs the law of noncontradiction, however, we do not stand above the Trinity metaphysically, nor the Scriptures epistemologically. We stand under a number of conflicting revelation claims and must decide whether to commit ourselves to any as true. The law of noncontradiction enables a person to distinguish bona fide revelation from counterfeits. Van Til refuses to acknowledge this major objective in Carnell’s writings or to face this issue in his own method.

It can be illustrated from the realm of medicine that Carnell’s test of truth need not make the natural person more ultimate than Scripture. The physician who diagnoses the case and writes the prescription is the final authority in a case of illness. Both Carnell and Van Til agree on that. Van Til implies that one should accredit the physician, even though he contradicts himself and does not take account of all the observable symptoms. For Van Til, the physician’s claims to be a physician are self-authenticating regardless of logic or fact. Carnell, on the other hand, thinks a layperson can and must intelligently decide between the list of alleged physicians and quacks. Only when the physician’s credentials are authenticated will Carnell submit to his prescriptions and surgery. When the doctor’s authenticity is substantiated by sufficient evidence, the final authority is the doctor not the lay person. Carnell explains his use of the moral test. “Since it is necessary that we first be assured that it is God not the devil that we are doing business with, we must apply the rule of good to find God, but once the heart is satisfied that God is worthy of receiving loving trust, the abstract good is then set aside and the will of God becomes the standard of goodness.” Van Til may deny that people will ever give up testing God’s Word to accept its authority. Surely several people checked Paul’s credentials as an apostle before yielding to his authority as a spokesman for God. Can we accept everyone’s claims to speak for God as self-authenticating? Surely here we have a serious misunderstanding in the interpretation of Carnell by the very strong accusations coming from Van Til. I would urge you, as you think about the approaches of these two people, to read Carnell for yourself and not interpret him in the eyeglasses of Cornelius Van Til. We’ll wind this up next time and look further at the approach of Carnell and apply it in our own ministries.

exploring approaches to apologetics ca513 o apologetics t ......in our last session, we had begun...

Documents