 |
Taking Every Thought Captive |
 Got Life? Our Ministry Our Beliefs Our Staff Articles What's New? Contact Us Resources Bookstore Search Links
|
Christ has absolute authority in all areas of knowledge By Jay Wegter I. Who Christ is depends upon Christ’s self-identification. A. Christ’s testimony concerning His mission and His
message was never divorced from
claim to be the only begotten Son of God (Jn. 5:18; 10:33-36). B. He continually punctuated His discourses with the
authoritative claim that He was from heaven – and that His message and arrival
were not as a result of His own initiative (See John 3:13; 5:30. If Christ
is who He says He is, then all speculation is excluded, for God can only swear
by Himself (Heb. 6:13). C. God’s Word declares that faith in the self-attesting
Christ of the Scriptures is the beginning, not the
conclusion, of wisdom. Paul ineffably declares in Colossians 2:3-8
that “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ.”[1] D. To reverence the Lord and fear Him is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7; 9:10).
Christ is the starting point of every academic pursuit. He is the
way, the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6).
To begin an academic endeavor without acknowledging Christ
in the world of thought is to be misled, untruthful and
spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-3).[2] II. The believer is obligated to presuppose the word of Christ in every area of
knowledge; the alternative is delusion. A. In Colossians 2:8, Paul says, “Beware lest any man rob
you by means of philosophy and vain deceit.” To be “robbed” is to suffer loss as a result of embracing “vain philosophy.” It is to lose Christ in whom alone are deposited, “all the treasures
of [God’s] wisdom and knowledge.”[3] 1. “Vain philosophy”
is any world view that does not find its starting point and direction in Christ. Paul warns against the kind of
philosophy accepted by the world’s intellectuals – its
origin is the traditions of men.
This kind of thinking does not begin with the truth of God and
the teachings of Christ. 2. Vain philosophy
refuses to bow to the Lordship of Christ over every area of life, including scholarship and the world
of thought. 3. Greg Bahnsen
observes, “Every man, whether an antagonist or an apologist for the Gospel, will distinguish himself and
his thinking either by
contrast to the world or by contrast
to God’s Word. The contrast, the antithesis, the choice is clear: either be
set apart by God’s truthful word or be alienated from the life of
God.”[4] B. The true believer directs his trust toward Christ, not his
own self- sufficient sight and intellect. When a person receives Christ by faith, he turns away from the wisdom of men (the
perspective of secular thought with its presuppositions). 1. When a person
turns to Christ by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, he gains the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12-16). 2. Therefore, to become a Christian is to
submit oneself to the Lordship of Christ.
It is to renounce autonomy and come under the authority of God’s Son. What the Holy Spirit causes all believers to say is “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3). 3. The Word of God is
the starting point for all wisdom and
knowledge. It is
the Word of God alone that gives certainty of knowledge. The
unbeliever can never have this certainty while he is in rebellion against Christ. C. The Biblical starting point for all knowledge affirms that
God created every fact and that Christ interprets every fact. God knows
exhaustively every fact in relation to every other fact.[5] 1. Argument by
presupposition asks, “Which method, which starting point, which conclusion is alone tenable?” Starting point, method and conclusion are always involved in one another. To argue for a truly biblical method of apologetics is to argue for a
truly biblical starting point.[6]
2. One starts with the
God of Scripture, thus one’s method always presupposes the God of Scripture. 3. The Biblical
starting point for all knowledge: a.) What the Bible says about God and His
relation to the universe is unquestionably true on its own
authority. b.) God exists apart from and above the world and
controls whatever takes place in the world. c.) Everything in the creation displays the fact that it
is controlled by God. d.) The objective evidence of God’s existence and
control is clear and inescapable in the universe. e.) If a man is self-conscious at all he is also God
conscious. f.) Men are always face to face with their Maker. g.) God has clearly revealed Himself both in nature and
in the Scriptures. h.) Man has no excuse for not accepting this clear
revelation. III. Numerous inconsistencies mark the unbeliever’s starting point. A. Glaring inconsistencies are inherent in the sinner’s
commitment to use autonomous reason as the starting point in the
pursuit of certain knowledge.
Some of those inconsistencies are as follows: 1. One cannot argue ultimate truth independently of the preconditions inherent in
it. In other
words, where would one find a neutral vantage point from which
he could discover and embrace an ultimate starting
point? An attempt to do so would be like saying that Newton was not
under the influence of gravity until he actually discovered its laws. 2.
Theism is the only starting point for intelligibility and meaning. The unbeliever’s moral and
epistemological problem is that he
has the wrong authoritative starting point. The
unbeliever alleges that his autonomous reason is
self-evidencing. As such, he deifies
his own reasoning processes. By so doing, he views his
mind as ultimate, able to provide
the standard to judge all truth claims, including those of Almighty
God! 3. The natural man
does not distinguish between God’s thoughts and his own thoughts. He makes God
a correlative of himself. (In other words, he envisions a god who is merely as
large version of himself – he does not revere the God of Scripture who
is self- existent, totally other, Almighty and Upholder of all
existence every moment.)
He erroneously conceives of his thoughts and God’s thoughts as pieces of the same pie. Thus, he puts himself on the same level as God. This view makes God only one
of many “interpreters.”
It destroys any distinction between knowledge that is absolute (God’s) and knowledge that is derivative
(that of redeemed men).[7]
4. The natural man assumes that his thinking processes are normal. Yet at the
same time, he embraces a naturalistic scheme of reality that precludes the
interpretive, authoritative function of the Word of God. Though he poses as disinterested and
objective, he fights against the claims of God upon him. He dreams of land where the 10 commandments
are not in force and where he is not accountable to the holy God of the
universe. (Escape from reason cannot be
the foundation of reason. “The sinner’s
god is always enveloped within a reality that is greater than his god and
himself” Van Til.) B. Closely associated with the unbeliever’s erroneous
starting point is his faulty philosophy of facts. The unbeliever’s philosophy of facts: 1. The unbeliever
denies that every fact has meaning by virtue of its place in the plan of God. The natural man denies that Almighty God is ineffably carrying out His plan as revealed in
the Holy Scriptures. 2. The unbeliever
envisions a “chance” universe.
Within that chance universe, any fact can be tossed into the
category of pure possibility.
(Under that contingency view, even the infallible proofs of Scripture – those anchored in history and
documented by eyewitnesses – can be dismissed as occurrences
within the realm of
possibility that have a naturalistic explanation. The unbeliever’s commitment to a naturalistic world view
prevents him from seeing Christianity in the facts.) 3. The sinner uses a
“chance” view of the universe to comfort himself that there is no absolute, comprehensive, final
judgment of God. By
espousing such a world view, the unbeliever
condemns himself to a contradictory view of reality.[8]
4. His contradictions
are evident – he holds that reality is non- structural in nature, yet also structural in nature
(i.e., he assumes both the uniformity of nature and the ultimacy
of chance). 5. He sees reality as
non-structured and on the other hand he
himself has virtually structured all of it! As a consequence, all his predication is self-contradictory (predication – to provide a basis for, to establish a concept, statement or
action). This is nothing less than man arrogating to himself the
omniscience of God. It is man projecting a pseudo-reality from his own
mind. IV. In the final analysis, all intellectual argument rests upon one of two presuppositions: a.) man is the final or ultimate reference point in human predication. OR b.) God speaking through Christ by His Spirit is the final or ultimate reference point in human predication. A. No predication is truly possible if the natural world is
all there is. 1. When chance is the
governing principle, it destroys all predication and certainty (the ultimacy of chance and contingency
obliterates the laws of logic and uniformity in nature and
science). If chance is ultimate, then chaos is foundational. Thus it would then be impossible to assert uniformity in nature. 2. The natural man’s
philosophy of facts is highly atomistic and piecemeal. (By
“atomistic” is meant that facts are treated like so many trillions of atoms rolling around without
meaningful relation to one another.)[9] 3. Atomism demands
that each proposition be thought of as able to
stand by itself and as intelligible by itself. But, to assert that facts be known apart from
a system is highly irrational.
(Without a concrete universal, the connection between various
judgments of discursive thought could only be intuition. Intuition is not a foundation for certainty and predication.) B. Biblical theism
demands that man’s knowledge be an analogical replica of the system of knowledge which belongs to
God. (Man as the image of God functions truthfully when he uses God’s
revelation to interpret his world.)
1. Man’s knowledge
serves as an analog of God’s knowledge – God’s knowledge is original, absolute and unchanging) 2. Thus, all things are
what they are in relation to God’s plan.
(The highest man can attain intellectually is to “think God’s
thoughts after Him.”
Newton, Kepler, Boyle and numerous other believing founders of modern science regarded their discoveries to
be thinking God’s
thoughts after Him.) 3. The Christian does
not talk about facts without talking about the
God who made them, constructed reality, gave testimony,
rules over the present order, sustains the creature and controls
the flow of history. 4. The Biblical
philosophy of facts can be summarized as follows: a.) God is the sovereign determiner of
possibility and impossibility. b.) A proper reception and understanding of
the facts requires submission to the Lordship of Christ. c.)Thus the facts will be significant to
the unbeliever only if he has a presuppositional change of mind from
darkness to light. d.) Scripture has authority to declare what has happened in
history and to interpret it correctly. e.) God knows every fact in the universe and gives them
their meanings. C. Christ’s absolute authority in all areas of knowledge
refutes the sinner’s three point premise. The unbeliever’s three point premise addresses the areas of knowledge, authority and the nature
of reality: 1.
Man and his intellect
are autonomous. 2.
Reality is based upon
chance and contingency. 3.
The mind is the
ultimate reference point and by logic, the limits of possibility in the universe may be determined. D. God asserts that the reality He has created displays a
plan. Without the knowledge of God, each man is in his own world by
himself. 1. The natural man’s
epistemological isolation is based upon his suppression of the truth of God. 2. The sinner does not
wish to keep God in remembrance – this is the posture of a covenant-breaker; he assumes
self-consciousness is intelligible without God-consciousness. 3. The natural man’s
“reality” is greater than God. The
natural man’s effective tool of suppression is to embrace the
sphere of his own “reality” in which God is finite. (A finite god is not a comprehensive judge, he permits man to retain his
autonomy.) 4. The unbeliever
treats his manufactured “reality” as authoritative. Therefore, when he dialogues with a believer, he assumes
that his interpreting of a fact independently of God is identical in
value (even in content!) with the believer’s interpretation which
depends upon God. V. The matter of knowledge is an ethical issue. A. In order to give man true knowledge about God, it was
necessary for Christ to die for mankind; thus making the matter of knowledge an ethical issue (not merely intellectual). 1. When an unbeliever
rejects Christ, he also rejects Christ as Interpreter of the world.
John 19:7 says, “The Jews
answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die
because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.” Knowing God in Scripture is knowing and loving God – this
is the true knowledge of God (Jn. 14:15). 2. Faith is not merely
an informed judgment, nor is it assent to
propositions.
Faith is right adjustment to, and surrender to, the righteousness of God. 3. Faith has a moral
basis – it issues from a heart that is set right toward the moral authority and rule of the Creator. 4. True repentance
begins with the mind’s acknowledgment that
thinking is dependent upon God. The repentance process puts a halt to man’s judging of God. In repentance, the intellect is brought under the mind of God (as revealed in the
Bible). The repenting man begins consistently thinking God’s thoughts
after Him. 5. The Word of God shows
the unbeliever that his world view self
destructs.
Repentance involves desisting from one’s cherished independence and autonomy. The Lord of the universe demands intellectual repentance (the surrender in repentance
involves a radical admission that the absolute source of knowledge
and certainty belong to God alone, man is utterly dependent). 6. Faith is not merely
an informed choice, it is a decision joined to repentance (repentance is a radical turning from sin and
self to God). Faith is
filled with self-renunciation BECAUSE, it looks
away
from self as the source of
knowledge and deliverance. B. A battle front exists between the self-contained God of
Scripture and the self-contained mind of the natural man. 1. As a hater of God,
he does not want to hear about God. The
claims of God upon man in His image are too disturbing
to seriously entertain (Note God’s testimony concerning man
– creaturehood, law-breaker, universal guilt, eternal
ill-desert). 2.
Man has a vested
interest in silencing the Biblical testimony concerning his own guilt, depravity and
undone state. The natural man’s antipathy to the truth of God goes
far beyond suppression – it harbors a secret desire to destroy
God’s revelation. 3. By suppressing the
truth, man opposes himself and his eternal
welfare. Contrary
to the lie in Eden believed by our first parents, there is no reality apart from God and His truth. (Modern
man’s love of the lie finds its expression in pluralism. In pluralism, there is no certainty, only a plethora of morally equivalent
opinions.) 4. When sin is seen in
view of the inescapable character of God, it is indeed terrifying.
For the cycle of suppression will not function once the impenitent man faces his Judge. The he will acknowledge what he has known all along – that God’s claims in every
area are real. 5. Hell begins after
the impenitent dies – that is when a lifetime of suppression is confronted with the truth that cannot
be suppressed. The
individual who dies without faith and repentance, perishes in a state of being an enemy of God in the mind
(Heb. 9:27; Eph. 4:17).
C. God’s compassion in salvation deals with the darkened mind
of man. 1. God’s mercy is
evidenced in His giving of Christ to the world. God’s plan to save man by His sovereign grace has to be
revealed; man cannot learn it from nature (nature, red in tooth and
claw, does not provide the message of redemption through Christ – only
the Scriptures reveal God’s sovereign mercy). 2. Only by regeneration
through Christ’s Spirit is the suppression
cycle broken. God’s
remedial work in Christ pierces the darkness of man’s heart.[10]
3. Christ’s victory in
the life of the individual cancels a man’s alliance with Satan (Col. 1:13).
Redemption is not solely the realm of the supernatural and the metaphysical. 4. Redemption deals with
reality. The believer’s universal, eternal, ultimate is not an abstract principle, but an ABSOLUTE
PERSON! The Person of Christ authoritatively answers every ultimate
question (a sampling of ultimate questions: What is man?
Where did he come from? Why is there evil? What is man’s purpose
and destiny? Does God
exist? Is there an after life?).[11]
5. God’s testimony
concerning the nature of reality runs contrary to every manmade theory of reality. The Christian affirms that his eternal God who is prior to the universe made all things
out of nothing (Only the Christian is in touch with reality). 6. Blaise Pascal
summarizes the comprehensive nature of Christ’s epistemic authority: “Not only do we
only know God through Jesus Christ, but we only know ourselves through Jesus Christ; we only know life and
death through Jesus Christ.
Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot know the meaning of our life or our death, of God or
ourselves. Thus without Scripture, whose only object is Christ, we know
nothing, and can see nothing but obscurity and confusion in the
nature of God and in nature itself.”
D. In Christ, man finds the true wisdom and true knowledge he
lost in the fall (1 Cor 1:30; Col 2:17). In Christ, man realizes that he is a creature of God and that he must not seek for comprehensive
knowledge. 1. In Christ, man
finds reconciliation in that Christ was offered up as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice. Christ’s work as priest cannot be separated from His work as prophet. (Christ fulfills His prophetic office in the work of restoring the believer to
the knowledge of God
and His truth.) 2. As King, Christ
subdues the believer to Himself. In
connection with His work as Priest and Prophet, Christ died to subdue
man and give him wisdom.[12] 3. God has placed in
Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3). a.) It is the Christian alone who has “the mind of Christ”
(1 Cor 2:16). As
such, he is able to appraise all things, and he is able to think God’s thoughts after Him (1 Cor 2:15). b.) The Christian’s mind is renewed by
Scripture. Therefore he steers clear of every philosophy that has its origin
in the world (Col 2:8).
Christ alone is the saved man’s epistemology ( Ps 36:9; Jn 8:12). c.) Though the Christian’s knowledge is finite, through
Christ his epistemology is that of ultimate rationalism. 4. Christ is Creator, Lawgiver, Sustainer, Redeemer and
Judge. He entered human
history to declare God to man (Jn 1:18).
Christ is the eternal “utterance” of God. Through Christ, God has spoken authoritatively and finally (Heb 1:3). E. Abraham is the
foundational believer in the Old Testament.
His faith typifies the kind of faith that saves a
person. He is the divinely designated example of the true believer – all who
savingly believe subsequent to him emulate his faith (Rom. 4:17). 1. Abraham did not walk
by intellectual self-sufficiency. Autonomous, empirical “sight” is not the source of reliance
of true faith. 2. Belief begins with a
presuppositional conviction about the veracity of God’s Word.
Abraham submits to the a priori dependability
of God’s Word, thus his faith is a paradigm for all who
follow.[13] 3. The life of Abraham
is consistent with the fact that God’s truth is anchored in historical events. a..) God “mediated” the giving of His inscripturated truth
through human history – that is He revealed Himself and gave
His oracles in the context of redemptive history. b.) Biblical
theological truth is not speculation, nor is it “upper story” metaphysics, it is reality. The revelation of God’s truth is grounded in real events in history such as the fall,
the flood, the exodus, the giving of the law, and the birth, death,
and resurrection of Christ. Endnotes: [1] Edmund P. Clowney, “Preaching the Word of the Lord: Cornelius Van Til” Westminster Theological Journal, (1984) 46:240. [2] Greg L. Bahnsen, Evangelism and Apologetics, (http://lonestar.texas.net/~rhanks/siteGallery/BahnsenEvangelism%20and%20 Apologetics.htm), p. 86. [3] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, (Atlanta: American Vision, 1996), p. 21. [4] Ibid., p. 8. [5] Scott Oliphant, “The Consistency of Van Til’s Methodology” Westminster Theological Journal, (1990) 52:34. [6] Ibid., p. 44. [7] James F. Stitzinger, Apologetics and Evangelism, (The Master’s Seminary, 1999). [8] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1955), pp. 126, 127. [9] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetics, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1998), pp. 306, 357, 382. [10] James F. Stitzinger, Apologetics and Evangelism, p. 70. [11] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 29. [12] James F. Stitzinger, Apologetics and Evangelism, pp. 35, 36. [13] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 92. |
