Our Evangelistic Strategy is Guided by the Nature of Faith

I. Scripture reveals the nature of faith and the condition of the

heart.

 

A. Scripture never describes the heart of the unbeliever in a favorable

light. The Word of God depicts unbelief as an expression of the moral

state of the inward man. In order for faith to germinate in the heart of a

man, there must be a moral change in the heart (John 8:43-45; 1 Cor.

2:14; Ez. 36:26,27; Luke 18:26,27).

B. An understanding of the nature of faith is essential in shaping the

method by which the sinner’s need is addressed.

 

1. Is the issue of unbelief a matter of rebellion, or lack of data, or both?

Scripture affirms that it is rebellion. The sinner is already hostile to

the light he has been given – the suppression of God’s truth has been

his practice, prior to hearing the truth of the gospel (Rom. 1:18-23).

2. Only a moral change of heart can reverse this (Matt 12:33).

C. In his book, Always Ready, Greg Bahnsen notes that Scripture gives us

numerous descriptions of a fool. When the Bible speaks of a fool, it

does not refer to a dimwitted buffoon. The biblical meaning of a fool has

to do with the person whose unbelief is expressed as disregard for God

and His truth.

1. The fool is characterized by self trust – this is why he lacks wisdom. He has forsaken God, the only source of true wisdom.

2. The fool relies upon his own (allegedly) self-sufficient intellectual powers. He thinks that his mind can operate effectively without being informed by Scripture. As a result, he is not teachable (Prov. 1:7;10:8; 15:5; 1 Cor. 1:20). [i][1]

3. From God’s omniscient perspective, the fool lives a life of vanity and folly. The fool is his own worst enemy, he opposes himself by rejecting God, the source of life. (By rejecting God’s offer of life and forgiveness, the fool makes a choice for his own destruction, thus he proves to be hostile to his own eternal welfare.)

4. Jesus alluded to the fool’s value system when He said, “For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).

D. The biblical fool may have a normal intellect, but he is characterized by

the misuse of his intellectThe following thought behaviors are

 descriptive of the fool:

1.) He avoids the topic of his creaturehood and origin. He operates from a position of “non-createdness.”

2.) He does not distinguish between his own thoughts and God’s thoughts.

3.) He views himself as the ultimate authority for determining truth.

4.) He attributes God’s attributes to himself (as if he, the finite creature, has the power, unaided by Scripture, to answer ultimate questions and uncover universal truth by the use of autonomous reason).

5.) He denies God’s authority and absolute claims upon his life.

6.) He says in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).

 

E. The biblical fool does not make God and His revelation the starting point in his thinking. Therefore, in his reasoning, he is antagonistic toward God. In his mind, he is an enemy of God because he uses his God-given intellect to obviate the Holy Scriptures (Col. 1:21; James 4:4; Mark 7:8-13).[ii][2]

1. Man’s break from God ethically, was also a break from God intellectually. God bears witness in the Scriptures as to the nature of man’s fallen intellect (Romans 1:18-23; Eph. 2:3; 4:17,18).

2. When fallen man regards himself as the ultimate reference point, he puts himself in a position tonot understand God’s truth (Romans 3:10,11). (Since his heart is in a state of enmity against God, he is in no position to independently verify divine truth.)[iii][3]

3. The natural man’s rebellion is seen in his covert enmity toward God’s claims upon him – though the unbeliever assumes the posture of a “truth-seeker who lacks data,” he is actually committed to his own independence from God. (Proofs from the wonders of nature and the creation will not overcome the unbeliever’s enmity toward God. As long as his core commitment is to autonomy, he will continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.)

4. Frequently, the unbeliever describes himself as neutral when it comes to the testimony of Scripture. He pretends to be objective. The Bible exposes this as a façade. For God’s claims upon a man eliminate every notion of neutral ground. There is no neutral spot in the universe and there is not a single rational creature in the universe who is neutral (the two orders of rational creatures are men and angels).

5. The Creator will not leave a man’s imagined autonomy in tact – instead God in His Word, confronts it head on and exposes it as rebellion.[iv][4]

II. When considering absolute truth, there are only two philosophies.

A. The first philosophy is what the Bible commends as genuine faith. It submits to the authority of God’s Word – this submission involves a presuppositional commitment to the veracity of the Scriptures.

1. The faith of Abraham perfectly illustrates this confidence in the reliability of God’s Word – Romans 4:14-22;

Hebrews 11:8-10, 17-19.)

2. God and His Word are self-authenticating. God doesn’t go outside Himself to define, understand or present Himself. There is no truth standard outside of God. There is no truth “magnifying glass” large enough to place over God and His authoritative Word -- every imaginable scholastic discipline is but a “particular.” Only God is the concrete universal absolute.

3. Without God’s ultimate truth, man attempts to create his own reality. Such an attempt moves man from reason to irrationality. Ultimate truth cannot be argued independently of the preconditions inherent in it. One might as well say, “Let’s stop breathing oxygen while we debate the necessity of that gas.” The only way we know anything with certainty is by God’s authoritative revelation - Psalm 36:9.)[v][5]

B. The second of the two philosophies is the commitment to self as the ultimate authority. 

1. As a result of mankind’s fall into sin, there is a universal commitment

to self as the ultimate starting point for all knowledge.

 

2. The debate between the two philosophies is over ultimate authority.

Where does the ultimate authority reside? Does it reside in God or in

man?

3. Jesus Christ is God’s reference point for man (Col. 2:3). He is the

source of absolute truth and He is the source of

ultimate answers to ultimate questions.

III. Because the two competing philosophies constitute a clash between

sources of ultimate authority, they totally condition the process of

interpreting facts.

A. These competing philosophic systems govern a man’s philosophy of facts. Every personinterprets facts according to one of these two philosophic systems.

1. When the natural man is confronted with the witness of God in

creation, he studiously suppresses the truth or holds it down by

means of false interpretation. His use of autonomous reason as the

starting point means that he will be an untruthful interpreter.

2. Man’s consciousness is a covenant consciousness. In other words,

God placed man on this planet to be a steward over the works of His hands (Psalm 8).

3. That stewardship involves covenant obligations – the Creator’s

ownership is upon man, for man is the “image-bearer” of God. This

is an immense privilege – man has a great purpose because he is

created for a great task. Central to this covenant responsibility is

man’s calling to be a truthful interpreter of God, creation and

humanity (Genesis 1-2).[vi][6]

4. Scripture proclaims that God’s attributes, power and divine

nature are clearly seen, yet the natural man interprets these facts of

creation untruthfully. He resorts to speculation and futility of mind

and becomes a fool as a consequence. Man’s unbelief in God’s Word

issues forth in disobedience to covenant obligations.

5. The Scripture says that unbeliever is without a defense (Greek,

apologia) or without excuse before God (Romans 1:18-23). They

 have no excuse because God has clearly shown Himself to mankind.

6. Remember, one’s world view is inseparable from one’s theory of

knowledge. The natural man “worships” his own mind as ultimate;

he has a theory of knowledge that exalts autonomous reason. As a consequence, he rebels against God’s authoritative revelation. His world view reflects his commitment to think independently of God.

B. According to God’s Word, human reason is to be the servant of divine

revelation.

1. Reason is a faculty designed by God for the task of interpreting

truthfully. The divine mandate of interpreting truthfully can only

be fulfilled when man is in submission to the Word of God,

thinking God’s thoughts after Him.[vii][7]

2. When men reject the Word of God, their interpreting will always be

false. The refusal to follow God’s truth will lead a man into error in

all fields of thought. (An erroneous starting point necessarily leads

to erroneous conclusions concerning the origin and meaning of

every fact in the universe.)

3. When men interpret falsely it is because they have regarded their

reason to be an independent and neutral faculty, not the servant of

divine revelation.

 

 C. God’s Word puts the sinner’s intellectual assumption of autonomous

reason on trial. Holy Scripture turns the tables on the unbelieving

sinner. Though unbelievers talk as if God and His revelation are on

trial, the Word of God places the sinner’s errant heart on trial.

The divine arraignment of the sinner is cast in a fourteen point

indictment found in Romans 3:10-18:

“There is none righteous, not even one;

There is none who understands,

There is none who seeks for God;

All have turned aside, together they have become useless;

There is none who does good,

There is not even one.”

“Their throat is an open grave,

With their tongues they keep deceiving,”

“The poison of asps is under their lips”;

“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;

“Their feet are swift to shed blood’

Destruction and misery are in their paths,

And the path of peace they have not known.”

“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

D. God’s indictment of Adam’s sinful race reveals why no man can

reason his way to God. Man’s mind is not neutral, but in rebellion.

The natural man uses his mind to sin against God. (God has

endowed man with the gift of reason and logic in order to receive

divine revelation. The independent exercise of reason will always

 result in erroneous interpretation.)

IV. Without reverence and faith, there is no understanding of God and all

He has made.

A. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise

wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7). (Those who fear God are in

awe of His sovereignty. They maintain a deep reverence for the His

unbreakable Word.)

B. Faith in God is NOT based upon autonomous proofs that satisfy our

intellects.

1. God demands faith in His Messianic Son (John 6:28,29).[viii][8] There

is NO knowledge of spiritual things until a person has savingly

believed upon Christ. For Christ is God’s authoritative Interpreter

 put over man as sovereign Lord.

2. Rejection of Christ is rejection of God the Son as Interpreter of the

world (Christ has absolute epistemic authority in all fields of knowledge – Col. 2:3).

3. When man arrogates to himself the position of epistemic

authority, he defies God’s authority and God’s appointed

Representative, Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:9-11; Ps. 2). (The field of

epistemology concerns the origin, validity and structure of

 knowledge – it deals with how we know what we know with

certainty.)

C. Faith therefore has a moral basis – it reveals what is in the heart of a man.

1. When a man’s heart is wrong in the sight of God, his thinking will

correspondingly be futile. Unbelief is not an error in judgment, unbelief is the fruit of a heart in rebellion against God (Heb. 3:12).

The opposite of truth is not ignorance, but rebellion.[ix][9]

2. Jesus declared that the means by which a person knows and

understands spiritual truth with certainty is by being willing to do

God’s will (John 7:17).[x][10] According to the Son of God, understanding

 is the reward of faith.

3. As long as a man uses his depraved intellect to “put God on trial,”

(or judge God), he cannot know or understand God. Human reason

cannot be the support of faith, for the object and

source of faith is God and His revelation (Rom. 10:17).

V. Man cannot reason his way to God.

Genuine faith does not depend upon what it sees, but upon the self-

attesting veracity of God’s Word (Heb. 11:1-6). Faith submits to the

dependability of Holy Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16,17). [xi][11]

A. There can be no “flat line” reasoning to God. There are two important

reasons for this. First, when one argues for an ultimate intellectual

criterion, circularity in reasoning will be unavoidable. Every world view

and every argument must have a starting point that is unquestioned,

authoritative and self-authenticating.

1. Without this ultimate starting point, facts will be unrelated and

“brutish,” (isolated, without interpretation by a universal). (One

cannot even begin to evaluate the very first fact he encounters

without a set of non-negotiable presuppositions about knowledge and

the universe in general.)

2. Every world view or philosophy of necessity must use its own

standard of truth to prove its conclusions. There is no standard for

 truth that sits above the Scriptures and there is no fact in the

universe more certain than the Scriptures.

3. The Bible believing Christian affirms that there are no neutral

facts that hold an authority independent of a scriptural interpretation. “They are God’s facts. And they are to be interpreted according to God’s Word.”[xii][12]

4. Reason either begins with God or self. Reason that begins with

God involves thought dependent upon God’s revelation. Reason that

begins with self assumes the false presupposition that man’s mind is

ultimate.

B. Second, those who come to know God have had a radical overturning of

their presuppositions about autonomous reason. The ability to

understand God is stipulated upon faith. Faith is the soul’s

“abandonment” of itself to God and His Word. Thus the only way to

know God is by forsaking one’s independent thinking about God. This is the very opposite of attempting to reason in a “flat line” manner.

C. God commands unbelievers to renounce their antagonistic reasoning and

to embrace a new system of thought (John 8:24).

 

1. Repentance (which always accompanies genuine faith) involves

radical abandonment of autonomous world views and independent

thinking about God.

2. Where there is true faith and repentance, there is a submission

to the mind of God and a new commitment to think God’s thoughts

after Him. The renewed mind embraces an entirely new epistemology

in which Christ and His Word are the final reference point and

authority for knowing (1 Cor. 2:14-16).

3. Repentance puts a halt to man’s judging God – it terminates a

man’s commitment to think “ultimately” (or with autonomous

reason). Repentance by means of God’s authoritative truth

mortifies the natural man’s view of self. It destroys his

presuppositions of ultimate thinking. It brings to bear the full

weight of God’s claims upon him.[xiii][13]

4. There is a self-renouncing character to saving faith – it looks

away from itself to God as the source of truth and life. Thus faith

cannot be grounded in man’s self-reliant thinking – in true

repentance, the final reference point and starting point shift from self

to God (Phil. 3:3; Jer. 17:5; Prov. 28:26; 1 Cor. 2:4,5).

VI. The point of contact of God and His truth with sinful man is at the

point of man’s rebellion.[xiv][14]

A. Though the sinner is commanded to seek God, he cannot take a step

in God’s direction without divine assistance (John 6:44,45; Is. 55:1-

11). When the sinner cries to God for mercy, he is also pleading for

the ability to come to God, believe and be saved (Luke 18:13).

1. God makes Himself known to the unbeliever by FIRST setting

forth the man’s predicament. His habitual breaking of God’s

law, his ill-desert, his legal guilt and his moral failure must be stated.

When the Holy Spirit brings conviction of sin, He “shows the sinner

his chains and the weight of his guilt.”

2. Men are not ready for the good news of the gospel UNTIL their

consciences have been educated concerning the seriousness of God’s

claims upon them (Gal. 3:23,24; John 16:13).

3. Man’s spiritual apathy constitutes rebellion. Man’s apathy is a

symptom of a heart dead to the things of God. The Scriptures

state that the solution to man’s spiritual deadness is the vivifying

power of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:1-5):[xv][15]

“And you were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)…”

4. Christ is God’s comprehensive answer to man’s predicament. God

commands sinners to appeal to Christ for a new heart of faith and

repentance. Man’s number one duty is to come to Christ and be

forgiven (Rev. 22:17).

B. The unbeliever’s arguments sound “rational” until he is taken back to

his world view and presuppostional starting point.[xvi][16] At that juncture,

his system falls apart – man’s existence in order to be meaningful

cannot be grounded upon chaos, chance and absurdity.

1. Even unbelievers presuppose theism in order to reason at all. There

are certain “preconditions” of knowledge that only an almighty

Creator can supply.

2. These preconditions include the following: God knows all things

exhaustively, God is the concrete universal that unites all particulars,

God’s control over the universe is manifested in the uniformity of nature,

God is the source of morals, God is the source of logic, God supplies the

categories of knowledge, God has interpreted all things, God answers

every ultimate question, God rules the universe according to His purpose

and plan.

3. Without these preconditions of knowledge, man is unable to predicate

anything. He is adrift upon a sea of epistemological despair –

certainty and rationality are ever out of reach. Man can only retreat

into solipsism (solipsism is the theory that the self is the only thing

that can be known and verified – self is the only reality).[xvii][17]

4. “When one willingly limits his faith, presuming to question the ability

or truth of God based upon human intellect or argumentation, it is a

serious provocation before the Lord – e.g., Psalm 78:18-22” (Greg

Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 93).

5. A universe without God’s sovereign moral authority and rule is a

universe based upon chance. The natural man clings to chance in

order to escape the claims of God. To opt for a chance universe is to

reject the God of the Bible.[xviii][18]

6. The natural man’s theory of knowledge is synonymous with his world

view. Since the unbeliever trusts in the ultimacy of his own mind, he

correspondingly rejects the authority of God’s Word. His world view is

necessarily constructed so as to invalidate God’s claims upon the

creature.

7. God’s almighty control of all things is manifested in His preservation

of His Word, the Bible. In a universe where chance is ultimate, the

Word of God is necessarily falsified by man. Thus, chance destroys

the infallibility of the Scriptures and the Gospel. (The unbeliever’s

system of thought is internally rotten. He cannot have it both ways –

he cannot have rational universe and at the same time, have a

universe based upon chance. Reason is slain on the altar of chance.

The God of the Bible is the precondition of knowledge and rationality.)

C. The nature of biblical faith governs our apologetic method.

The nature of belief must guide our strategy when defending the faith

and evangelizing the lost. As a result, we never hold the ultimate

authority of God’s Word in abeyance for the sake of neutrality amidst

argumentation.

1. When defending the faith, we do not appeal to autonomous empirical

“sight,” instead, we proclaim the a priori Word of God.[xix][19]

2. Man is utterly dependent upon God for existence and meaning. We

are God’s thought and creation, upheld and sustained by Him every

moment (Col. 1:16,17; Acts 17:24-27).

3. It is absolutely impossible to find a vantage point that is neutral,

objective and autonomous from which to scrutinize God and His

Word. There is never a moment when the claims of the Creator are

not resting upon the creature.

4. When men pretend to operate from a neutral vantage point, they are

in reality revealing a heart full of revolt against God. Their greatest

need is not a superior vantage point, it is repentance and faith toward

God.

Endnotes

[i][1] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, (American Vision, Atlanta, 1996) 55.

[ii][2] Ibid., pp. 65-67.

[iii][3] James F. Stitzinger, Apologetics and Evangelism TH 701, (Syllabus from The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, CA copyright 1999) 84,85.

[iv][4] Ibid., pp. 84,85.

[v][5] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, pp. 66-68.

[vi][6] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, (Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg, 1955) 90-95.

[vii][7] James F. Stitzinger, Apologetics and Evangelism, p. 17.

[viii][8] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, pp. 87,88.

[ix][9] Ibid., p. 88.

[x][10] Tom Wells, The Moral Basis of Faith, (The Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, 1986) 9-11.

[xi][11] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 89.

[xii][12] Michael J. Kruger, “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics” in The Master’s Seminary Journal, (12:1, Spring 2001) 70, 81,82.

[xiii][13] James F. Stitzinger, Syllabus, p. 89.

[xiv][14] Ibid., p. 104.

[xv][15] Ibid., p. 103.

[xvi][16] Ibid., pp. 58,99,101,113.

[xvii][17] Greg L. Bahnsen, A Critique of the Evidentialist Apologetical Method of John Warwick Montgomery, pp. 5,11.

[xviii][18] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, pp. 140-150.

[xix][19] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, pp. 91-93.

Paganism tries to make...

I. Uncovering the agenda of pseudo-science.

 

A. Pseudo-science presupposes that the material world is the sum

total of reality.

1. Another word for pseudo-science is naturalism. “Pseudo” is an

apt title because naturalism does not base its conclusions upon

the scientific method. Materialism or naturalism cannot be

verified by empirical science. Naturalism is a philosophical belief

about the nature of reality.

2. Naturalism operates upon the premise that God (if He exists),

cannot be known, or He is irrelevant or absent. Any mention of

God is seen as an “addition” to science that clouds objectivity.

(By contrast, the founders of modern science dealt with God “in

relation” to science, not in addition to science.)[1]

3. Along with acting as if God is irrelevant, naturalism assumes an

intellectual elitism or “disciplinism.” This intellectual bigotry

falsely asserts that “science” operates independent other

disciplines. (Its literature is replete with anti-theistic language.

“The universe was not designed, the universe has no purpose,

the universe was formed by mindless, purposeless processes.”[2]

B. For the naturalist (materialist, pseudo-scientist), the universe is

analogous to a box:

1. Everything that exists is inside the box. The natural order is caused by (or explicable by) things that exist in the box.

2. Nothing, including God, is outside the box. THEREFORE, nothing outside the box (the box we call the universe or natural order) can have any causal effect on the box. The natural order is a closed system. Determinism is therefore true.[3]

3. The “box” view of the universe is a philosophy concerning the nature of reality. The propositions of the materialist-naturalist are as follows:

a.) Only nature exists.

b.) Nature has always existed (it is self-existent).

c.) Nature is characterized by total uniformity. Regularity

(uniformity) precludes the possibility of a supernatural event.

d.) Nature is a deterministic system, “free will” is not compatible

with naturalism.

e.) Nature is a materialistic system. Everything real is explicable

as a material entity.

f.) Nature is a self-explanatory system. All that happens may be

explained in terms of other elements of natural order. (It is

not necessary to seek an explanation beyond the natural

order.)

(When contrasting theism to naturalism’s box analogy, we assert that God exists outside the box. God created box. God acts causally within the box.)[4]

C. The driving force behind naturalism (pseudo-science) is an agenda

that demands materialistic conclusions from its “research.”

1. Evidence that the conclusions of naturalism are “rigged” come

from the pseudo-scientists themselves!

2. After reviewing Carl Sagan’s book, Demon Haunted World,

Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin declared, “It’s not that the

methods and findings of science compel us to accept a

materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world, on the

contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material

sources to create an apparatus of investigation and set of

concepts no matter how marvelous that produce materialistic

explanations. Materialism is absolute. We cannot allow a

divine foot in the door.”[5]

D. The goal of materialism is clear. It is nothing short of a complete

interpretation of the universe.

 

1. Pseudo-science regards the whole phenomenal world to be its territory. That includes mental, physical, and human behavior. The scientific method is regarded as the SOLE gateway to the whole region of knowledge.[6]

2. Philosophers Comte and Pearson assume that facts and classifications of facts (categories) can be empirically discovered. Materialistic “science” offers itself as an absolute authority in matters of knowledge. Naturalism suggests that we have no right to believe anything (including morals) unless they are principles discovered “through a microscope.”[7]

3. Within the philosophy of modern science is the supreme goal of uniting all knowledge within a single all embracing system. Pseudo-science boasts that it possesses a single all-sufficient principle of interpretation. By that principle, it purports to provide the meaning of all reality while denying the living God of Scripture (this evinces an apostasy that rejects God’s role in providing the principle of interpretation by His plan.)[8]

4. Pseudo-science is a philosophy that is not committed to science, but to evolution as its universal. Michael Shermer, leading spokesman for naturalism, admits to its religious structure: “Scientism is a scientific world view that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an age of Science. . . cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. We follow the dictates of our shamans who command our veneration . . . with scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time.” [9]

 

II. The presuppositions of naturalism drive its methods and

conclusions.

 

A. Though it claims objectivity, naturalism is a slave to anti-God

presuppositions.

1. Man cannot be the source of unity in human experience. God alone has unity of knowledge. Only God can give unity to knowledge and to human experience.[ [10]

2. When mankind apostatized from God in the Fall, it formed a cleavage between man’s experience and truth and reality. This division between experience and truth is evident in naturalism. (In the present state of being “cut loose” from unity, openly anti-theistic men must presuppose a theistic view of reality in order to conduct experiments and make logical inferences.)[11]

3. With the entrance of sin, man cut his study of himself loose from God. He also cut his study of nature loose from himself (man as the image of God). For this reason, all the study of nature since the fall has been false. As far as an ultimate point of view is concerned, the unbeliever has been in error in his interpretation of the physical world, for it cannot be known apart from God.[[12]

4. The premises of naturalism (“nature is all there is and all there will ever be”) cannot be tested empirically. The ultimacy of matter (materialism) is a philosophy and a world view. Carl Sagan (the self-appointed televangelist of naturalism) often alluded to the fact that naturalism was a world view. He remarks, “Our ancestors worshipped the sun and they were far from foolish.” The Christian apologist must challenge the assumption that science by definition means naturalistic philosophy.[13]

 

B. Modern science claims “total objectivity,” but it defines that

“objectivity” according to its presupposition of materialism.

1. Modern science insists that it works with “facts” (uninterpreted

bits of irrationality scattered by chance). Strict materialism

demands that these “facts” are irrational and undetermined by

anything outside of the universe (thus no divine providence).[[14]

2. In order for modern science to wear its mantle of “unrestricted

research,” it must cling to a view of the universe that regards

contingency as a universal (the ultimacy of chance). There must

be no determining character to determine any determinate

trait.[[15]

3. It is the essence of modern to assume that facts are non-

revelational of God. The unbelieving scientist is breaking God’s

covenant when he says that he is just objectively following where

the facts lead him (“I’m just using the scientific method”). An

example helps illustrate apostasy of the scientist: Suppose a

researcher decided to dig up a large section of ground on the

White House lawn and then not only acts greatly surprised when

The guard taps him on the shoulder asking for his permit, but also

insists on his right to so what he is doing without any permit at

all. (This is God’s universe, all facts are God’s facts. Man is

under covenant obligation to God to interpret the phenomenal

world as such.)[16]

C. The laboratory is not a philosophy-free zone.

1. The procedures associated with empiricism are inseparable from philosophy-laden world views and techniques.

2. Empirical methods rely upon philosophical and theological underpinnings. It is a misnomer to for the scientist to assert that he performing “theory-independent” observation.

3. Analysis and conclusions are only possible if one operates upon premises. Without the underpinnings of philosophy and theology, empiricality and objectivity fall down on both sides.[[17]

4. In order to hold up objectivity and empiricality, scientists must provide a philosophical “container” for their facts. It could be illustrated by the way that we form a bowl in our mashed potatoes to hold the gravy. For the scientist, the bowl that holds his facts consists of the philosophical, metaphysical, theological underpinnings.[[18]

5. The most basic presuppositions necessary in order to “do science” are as follows. The scientist has to presuppose the reality of the universe, the uniformity of nature, the reality and rationality of his mind, the compatibility between the physical universe and abstract thought (otherwise there could be no true meaning – he could not make his knowledge coherent to other minds). [19] These presuppositions drawn from theism are necessary for rationality. But the modern scientist adds two “inviolate” hypotheses of his own that are anti-theistic:

a.) Facts are not created.

b.) There is no determination outside the universe.

D. The driving force behind pseudo-science is materialism. The

presupposition of materialism totally conditions the method and

conclusions of materialism. Presupposition, method and

conclusion are inseparable.

1. “Scientism” repudiates anything that cannot be reduced to the

physical/material and studied by the scientific method.

Chemical evolutionist Richard Dickerson comments, “Science,

fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and

fundamental rule. . . Let us see how far. . . we can explain the

behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of

purely physical and material causes, without invoking the

supernatural.”[20]

2. As Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin admitted, the a priori

adherence to material causes creates a method of investigation

and set of concepts that produces material explanations.

a.) Having presupposed that the world was governed solely by

uniformly operating laws, Darwin philosophically “rigged”

his argument for evolution. If one accepts philosophical

naturalism, then mechanistic determinism (evolution)

“must” be true regardless of the facts.[21]

b.) Operating upon the presupposition of naturalism, Darwin

had already “stacked the deck” in favor of a naturalistic

account of life, before he uncovered any convincing facts.

As British biologist Richard Dawkins put it, Darwin “made

it possible to be a an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”[[22]

(The evolutionary naturalism of pseudo-science is the

pagan’s “universal” by which he interprets all facts.)

E. Unbelieving scientists speculate, then dictate their concept of the

nature of reality. (They posit a mindless first cause.)

1. The unbelieving scientist sets out without God in search of the

highest philosophical concept in terms of which he can

interpret reality.[23]

2. Francis H. C. Crick who discovered the DNA molecule has

said, “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is,

in fact, to explain all biology in terms of physics and

chemistry.” Crick made this remark in the context of biology’s

insurmountable problem; namely how does one explain how

worlds of information got into DNA molecules? Recognizing

the immensity of the problem, Crick then postulated that DNA

codes in bacteria were transmitted to our planet in a missile

from some other part of space.[24]

III. The limitations of science severely restrict its ability to

interpret reality.

 

A. Modern science touts its fidelity to objectivity, but fails to consider

the severe limits on science. (The aims, methodologies, and

presuppositions of science cannot be validated by science. The

effort to validate science is a philosophical issue. One cannot

turn to science to justify science.)[25]

B. There are “bare minimum” assumptions that science must make

in order for its work to be viewed along rational realist lines.

These assumptions include:

1. The human senses are reliable and capable of giving accurate

information about a “mind-independent” physical world (and

not merely information about successive sense impressions).[26]

2. Science must assume some uniformity of nature in order to

justify induction. (Uniformity is critical when researchers

assume that they can legitimately infer from past cases to

unexamined future cases. But the justification of induction is

a philosophical issue.)[27]

3. Science assumes both uniformity and the existence of

universals in order to justify inductive inferences from the

examined members of a class. (These assumptions are

necessary in order to extend their findings to all the members

of a class, past and future. But these assumptions themselves

cannot be justified inductively.[28]

 

3. Science assumes that the laws of logic are true.

4. Science assumes that numbers exist (i.e., is the “two-ness” of an oxygen molecule just as much a constituent as its other chemical properties?).

5. Science assumes that language has meaning (i.e., scientific theories are examples of language and are therefore involved in issues of semantics).

6. Science assumes that truth exists and that it involves some sort of correspondence between theories and the world.

7. Science assumes certain moral, epistemic, and methodological values in its practices. (Truth-telling and honest reporting in experiments are regarded as moral virtues.)[29]

(These assumptions are necessary to ground science as a

rational discipline. But these assumptions are philosophical in

nature or “brute givens" which cannot themselves be verified by

science.)[30]

 

C. The limitations of science point to the fact that only Christianity

is the source of a rational world view. The limitations of science

include the following:

1. Science deals only with the physical universe. (Knowledge

related to universals is not the domain of science. Examples

include: morals, the laws of logic, the preconditions of

knowledge, the immaterial world and world view. See

Colossians 1:16, 17 and Psalm 145:3).

2. Science cannot prove a universal negative. (It is absurd

when modern science attempts to make a blanket statement of

denial about the anti-supernatural nature of reality. An

example of a universal negative would be: “There is no such

thing as hell, as an angel, as a devil, as an eternal human

soul, as a person Creator.)

3. Science is unable to make objective moral judgments.

(Man cannot be the source of absolute ethics. Proponents of

social Darwinism have shown a preference for the wholesale

rejection of moral absolutes that flow from the immutability

and holiness of God.)

4. Science cannot produce final answers to ultimate

questions. Science cannot supply the absolute universals by

which facts are to be interpreted. God alone reveals ultimate

absolute truth by which facts are given meaning. (99% plus of

all of the phenomena in the universe are and have been beyond

human observation. It is a hopeless task for man to

autonomously attempt to gain the unity of all knowledge.)

5. Scientific work is fallible and prone to error. The vast

majority of scientific theories have changed in the last one

hundred years. Most have been altered, replaced, or discarded.

6. Science is bound by certain God-ordained restrictions.

The mind of man is ontologically different from the mind of

God. Man’s ability to interpret the universe correctly is totally

dependent upon God’s revelation. (e.g., Does the Grand

Canyon contain the story of the evolution of life on earth or the

record of a catastrophic deluge?)

7. All scientists (people) are prejudiced by their commitment

to foundational assumptions about the nature of reality

and the nature of knowledge(The natural man operates

upon prior assumptions and presuppositions. See Romans

1:18-32 and Jeremiah 17:9.)

 

IV. Modern science is a woefully inadequate reference point. It

cannot explain the nature of ultimate reality.

 

A. To stress the limits of science is not “anti-science,” -- the

Emphasis upon limits is simply to show that science is by

definition limited in its valid sphere of reference.[31]

 

B. Great thinkers have warned over the centuries that a departure

 

from God denudes man of meaning and results in the death of

certainty. No matter how much learning and research is

interspersed, the denial of God and the death of meaning cannot

be separated.[32]

 

1. When man asserts a materialistic view of reality, he can give no

concrete reason why humans have more value than the aquatic

life in a pond.[33]

2. By linking together undirected, purposeless variation and blind

impersonal processes, Darwin made the spiritual explanation of

life superfluous.[[34]

C. The Creator-creature distinction is the starting point for all

knowledge.[35]

 

1. A transcendent God requires a transcendent method. (When

man pursues absolute universal knowledge, he is totally

dependent upon the mind of God.)

2. God is transcendent. He is not a part of the universe.

Therefore it is hypocritical for unbelievers to suggest that if He

existed, He could be found directly by empirical methods of

investigation. (Even within the universe, scientists assert the

existence of many things that are not directly observable but

are only “known” by their effects. Examples are: black holes,

the laws of friction, magnetic fields, etc.)[36]

3. One cannot prove the existence of God in the same way that one

proves the car is in the garage. The transcendent God of the

universe must be presupposed. For no method or equipment

can be used to “go out front of God” in order to find Him. He

gives all the light to all created facts. God cannot be “found” by

evaluating facts from a supposedly neutral vantage point. To

attempt to do so would be like standing at the base of Mt.

Everest and trying to illuminate the summit with a penlight

flashlight. The equipment is totally inadequate.[37]

D. The laws of logic, an ordered universe, and vast information all

presuppose an all-powerful God.

 

1. Theism alone gives coherence to human experience; theism

alone unites truth, experience and reality.

2. Information is not inherent in matter. (When musing upon the

origin of life by chance processes, the famous astronomer Sir

Fred Hoyle likened that probability to a row of blind individuals

10 to the 50th power in length (10 followed by 50 zeroes), all

finding the solution to the Rubik’s cube at the same instant.[38]

3. Scientists are faced with countless mysteries in the physical

world that they cannot explain. (Scientists are baffled by a host

of behaviors in the animal world. They are unable to explain

the source of engineering skills in spiders and the location of

navigational organs in migrating birds.[39]

4. While the natural man remains an unbeliever, he cannot rise

above his vain approach to reasoning. Without presupposing

the God of Scripture, the unbeliever will continue his attempt to

make facts intelligible by relating them solely to other facts.

The task of the apologist is to call upon the unbeliever to

confess his intellectual ruin.[40]

 

 

 

 

Endnotes:

[1] Michael Bauman Ed. Et al, Michael Bauman, “Between Jerusalem and the Laboratory: A Theologian looks at Science” Evangelical Apologetics, (Camp Hill: Christian Publishing Inc., 1996), p. 199.

[2] Ibid., p. 200-201.

[3] Ronald B. Nash, World Views in Conflict, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1992), pp. 117-118.

[4] Ibid., pp. 118-121.

[5] John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2000), p. 427.

[6] Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, (Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation, 1952), 201-202.

[7] Ibid., 202.

[8] Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1976), p. 87.

[9] Henry M. Morris, “What are they afraid of?” in Back to Genesis, p. b, c, vol. 31, no. 12 Acts and Facts (December 2002).

[10] Brian Schwertley, Secular Humanism, ed. by Stephen Pribble, (http://www.reformed.com/pub/secular.htm), pp. 4-7.

[11] Ibid., p. 7.

[12] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1998), p. 296.

[13] Charles Colson, How Now Shall we Live? (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999), pp. 52-55.

[14] Robert Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, p. 88.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, pp. 680-681.

[17] Michael Bauman, Evangelical Apologetics, pp. 197-198.

[18] Ibid., p. 198.

[19] Robert Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, p. 88.

[20] John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists?, pp. 427-428.

[21] Charles Colson, How Now Shall we Live?, pp. 95-96.

[22] Ibid., pp. 94-95.

[23] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apogetic, p. 506.

[24] Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage, (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1990), p. 39.

[25] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, A Defense of Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 197.

[26] Ibid., p. 198.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid., p. 199.

[31] John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists?, p. 436.

[32] Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage, p. 80.

[33] Brian Schwertley, Secular Humanism, p. 2.

[34] Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live?, p. 82.

[35] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, p. 557.

[36] Brian Schwertley, Secular Humanism, p. 3.

[37] John Blanchard, p. 428.

[38] Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live?, p. 74.

[39] Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, (Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, 1997), pp. 12-14, 241-246.

[40] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, p. 701.