Hymnals & Presuppositionalism

“On Christ the solid rock I stand,

All other ground is sinking sand,

All other ground is sinking sand”

This chorus from the popular hymnal “The Solid Rock” is so simple yet profound. It is profound because it not only echoes a Christian truth, but it also captures the basic idea of the presuppositional method of apologetics in a simple yet beautiful way.

Christ is the Solid Rock not only religiously or morally but intellectually as well. Christ alone is the solid foundation upon which one can erect a coherent world-and-life view. All other ground - all other foundations - is sinking sand. Every attempt at building a worldview not founded on Christ is doomed to fail and the structure is doomed to sink. This message is passed across clearly in this chorus.

Van Til’s transcendental challenge to unbelief can be construed as a dilemma:

Either you submit to God’s revelation, or you forfeit all rationality. Either you accept Christ, or accept intellectual chaos. Either you build on the Solid Rock, or on sinking sand.

The Van Tilian transcendental approach is simply a philosophical variation of the dilemma presented by the Gospel:

Either accept Jesus or face moral/spiritual/epistemological destruction.

That’s the beauty of Presuppositional Apologetics.

The Bible tells us that it is the foolish man that builds his house on sinking sand. An unbelieving outlook on life is foolish because it ignores the philosophical solid ground revelation provides and chooses the sinking sand of epistemological autonomy. The Folly of Unbelief gives a clear illustration of the futility of non-Christian thought. Get it here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more