The Task of Apologetics: AIM

God’s word, which strongly and boldly claims that the Christian message is true, knowable, and provable, stands in sharp contrast to the experientialism and “evidentialism” that are prevalent in evangelical circles today. (67) God's revelation is always clear." (68) In the first place, Scripture never bypasses the mind and reasoning of those who are confronted with its message, making its appeal (somehow) straight to the emotions or simply calling for a noble commitment of the will. Conversion surely does involve emotional feeling and volitional dedication, but never merely so.

In the second place, one will look in vain to find anything in the Bible like an appeal to the “probability” of its truth-claims. That may be the general spirit that pervades much of modern apologetics, but it is starkly absent from the biblical witness. With respect to a particular fact of history, Peter proclaimed on the day of Pentecost that all the house of Israel may “know with certainty” that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:36). The biblical witness to (1) the necessity of a rational defense of the Christian’s truth-claims and to (2) the full certainty with which they can be demonstrated stands over against the attitude of “fideism.” It is important to understand correctly what “fideism” means as a commonly used term in religious philosophy. (70)

            Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic is, as anyone can see from the above, the diametric opposite of fideism. He taught: “We as Christians alone have a position that is philosophically defensible"; he spoke of being "certain ... that Christianity is objectively valid and that it is the only rational position for man to hold." (78) When the Christian defends his faith, then, he must not rest upon emotional appeals or a mere call to volitional commitment; he must exhibit the gospel as the rigorous intellectual challenge that it is. The unbeliever’s position "ought to be refuted by a reasoned argument, instead of by ridicule and assumption.

Anyone who knows Van Til’s teaching and writings knows that he never tired of making known this high demand for the task of apologetics: "We cannot allow that if rational argument is carried forth on true premises, it should come to any other conclusion. Therefore, it is strange that some critics of Van Til have attempted to paint him as a proponent of fideism. For instance, John W. Montgomery charges that in Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic we “give the unbeliever the impression that our gospel is as aprioristically, fideistically irrational as the presuppositional claims of its competitors.”

Van Til’s presuppositionalism explicitly aims to provide rational and objective proof of the inescapable and certain truth of Christianity. The critical allegation of fideism against his apologetic is thus ridiculous. Indeed, his critics themselves make no effort to present a proof of Christianity that rises above the level of rational probability. (92)

 

FIDEISM (BOTH EXPERIENTIAL AND EVIDENTIAL) REPUDIATED

Thinking that Butler's type of argument is the only type of argument conceivable, they gave up all hope when they saw their hero defeated by

Hume. They saw no way of harmonizing the facts of the Christian religion with the "constitution and course of nature."

This fideistic attitude comes to expression frequently in the statement of the experiential proof of the truth of Christianity. People will say that they know that they are saved and that Christianity is true no matter what the philosophical or scientific evidence for or against it may be.

A second and less consistent class of fideists, though denying the validity of any philosophical argument for Christianity, turns to arguments taken from archaeology, biological science, etc., hoping in this way to show that the spade corroborates the Bible.

 

 

 

THE GOAL OF OBJECTIVE, ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN PROOF

 

Our argument as over against this would be that the existence of the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature which the scientist needs. (97)

The second objection may be voiced in the following words: "While a Christian can prove that his Christian position is fully as reasonable as the opponent's view, there is no such thing as an absolutely compelling proof (99) that God exists, or that the Bible is the word of God, just as little as anyone can prove its opposite.

It is the weakness of the Roman Catholic and the Arminian methods that they virtually identify objective validity with subjective acceptability to the natural man. Distinguishing carefully between these two, the Reformed apologist maintains that there is an absolutely valid argument101 for the existence of God and for the truth of Christian theism.

As for the question whether the natural man will accept the truth of such an argument, we answer that he will if God pleases by his Spirit to take the scales from his eyes and the mask from his face. It is upon the power of the Holy Spirit that the Reformed preacher relies when he tells men that they are lost in sin and in need of a Savior.

 

 

 

THE GOSPEL AS AN INTELLECTUAL

 

If the Corinthians would but look at the facts as they are, and particularly as they have shown themselves to be in the course of history, they would be compelled to acknowledge the bankruptcy of the wisdom of man. What answer had Socrates, Plato and Aristotle been able to give to the deepest problems of life?

Having such a view of the nature of man Paul did not merely plead for a "complete system," for recognition of the "spiritual dimension" as well as the material. He did not want merely to add the idea of the personal confrontation with Jesus Christ to that of the impersonal study of the laws of nature. (109)

How could those who had worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator be expected to turn from their evil way? Would they turn as soon as it was shown to them intellectually that the wisdom of this world has been made foolishness with God? Indeed not.

Yet the Apostle did not despair. He did not lower the requirements of the gospel in order to get men to accept it. Being truly all things to all men, sacrificing himself without limit for the sake of Jew and Gentile alike, he yet continued to insist always on the complete rejection of the “wisdom" of man and on the substitution for it of the "foolishness" of God. (113)

He knew all the evidence was for the truth of his message. (114)  Can anyone really doubt that God, the God whom Paul preached, does exist? The eternal power and Godhead of Paul's gospel are clearly visible to all men everywhere.115 God speaks His requirements through all the facts with which man deals.

                                                                 Personal Response

In this chapter it is give the true aim of the apologetics as I read how to defend their faith, the nature of necessity and how the apologetics evangelism, theology, philosophy are connected to each other these are a very clear that the aim Of the apologetics is not just for the believer it is giving the privilege to reach everyone to share the gospel to share the truth with the different strategy. 

Like defending our faith is that in it men has no excuse whatsoever for not accepting the revelation of God whether nature, including man and hi surrounding or in scripture. God revelation is always clear. The aim of apologetics is to clarify that scripture never by the mind and reasoning of those who are confronted with its message, making its appeal somehow straight to the emotions or simply calling for a noble.

 As I read this I found out the different about the fideism that religious truth is inaccessible to human reason thus amounting to a reduction of religion to an irrational faith. And Fideism is the view which assumes knowledge originates in a fundamental act of faith, independent of rational presupposition that is according to their own view. For them also fideism’s faith  is exclusively determined by the emotions which is different from Van Til’s pressupositional apologetic for him when the Christian defense his faith then, he must  not rest upon emotional appeals on a mere call to volitional commitment he must exhibit the gospel as the rigorous intellectual challenge that it is.

 That’s why he affirmed that Warfield was quite right in maintaining that Christianity is objectively defensible. For me gospel is not for arguing or reasoning or evidence this is based on faith. In this chapter there are three groups spoken of the direct followers of butler, the more consistent fideists and the less consistent fideists, there is in all of them emphasis upon the appeal to brute facts whether those facts be external or internal. The followers of butler think that there is a defense of the Christian experience before the bar of philosophy as well as before the bar of science. The consistent fideists hold that no defense of any sort I possible. The consistent fideist contends that Christianity may be scientifically, but cannot be philosophically defended. 

This just for their own view as a Christian we are huge different for us God’s revelation is clear for us. The aims of the apologetics like Apostle Paul that he knew that all the evidence  was for the truth of his message can any really doubt that God , the whom Paul preached, does exist. The eternal power and God need of Paul’s gospel clearly visible to all men everywhere. 

God speak His requirements through all the facts with which man deals. He speaks to men in the works of creation and providence. He speak also to men through their conscience he speak at the beginning of history in direct supernatural fashion to Adam. All men are therefore with excuse. For Van Til’s whatever the attitude of those whom it comes may be we must press the objective validity of the Christian claim at every point. 

Because the intellectual case for Christianity made by apologist is objectively valid that it ought to be proof and witness for both unbeliever and believer. We should stand and proclaim his word whatever the situation, whatever we faces, we should go and reach those people who are not yet know who is God.