Natural Revelation and Presuppositionalism
The non-Christian generally possesses a functional view of religion. The reason for deception and confusion is that a functional view of religion does not necessitate clarity as to whether or not certain beliefs are true or false. For example, a cutlery expert or someone who works in producing tableware may suggest that a particular knife a person is using is not a true knife and yet would be reckoned as absurd so long as the knife serves its function. Whether or not an artifact looks like a typical knife is not the point; it is considered a knife based on its function to cut any given object. Basically, many people have this same functional view of religion. As long as it works then it should be left alone.
For a Christian to claim exclusivity, in terms of salvation through Jesus Christ, a religious person (who is not concerned with truth but only a pragmatic emphasis) will generally meet him with hostile opposition. The question of the eternal destiny of those who never hear the gospel and the justice of God is a pertinent question to answer then.
An apologetic and biblical response to the question is that all people possess knowledge of God that is derived from a natural revelation from God through the created world. This was one of the basic assumptions of Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics.
To begin with then I take what the Bible says about God and his relation to the universe as unquestionably true on its own authority. The Bible requires men to believe that he exists apart from and above the world and that he by his plan controls whatever takes place in the world. Everything in the created universe therefore displays the fact that it is controlled by God.… Men cannot get away from this evidence. They see it round about them. They see it within them. Their own constitution so clearly evinces the facts of God’s creation of them and control over them that there is no man who can possibly escape observing it…. Whether men engage in inductive study with respect to the facts of nature about them or engage in analysis of their own self-consciousness they are always face to face with God their maker.1
By virtue of natural revelation there is a core belief system or minimal attributes about God that are communicated universally. It could even been said that there is some generic truths in most religions. In any belief system one has core beliefs and peripheral beliefs. This is to say that world religions compared to Christianity may have agreement on peripheral issues, but are radically different on the core beliefs that cannot be compromised. For example, if a person believed in universalism he might say that all religions teach the same thing like “love your neighbor.” Christianity differs from other religions because loving one’s neighbor does not define Christianity; it is defined by who Jesus is.
Jesus said many things about loving one’s neighbor but that is an implication of being a Christian. One can love his neighbor and still not be a Christian, but one cannot be a Christian and deny certain things about Jesus. Truths are evident in other religions that may overlap Christianity. For instance, some people who are Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim may have knowledge of general spiritual truths.2 The question still remains, preliminarily, why are there false systems of belief?
The Need for Exegesis in Presuppositionalism
In response to Berkouwer on “The Authority of Scripture,” Van Til has admitted the need for detailed exegesis in his writings. “This is a defect. The lack of detailed scriptural exegesis is a lack in all of my writings. I have no excuse for this.”3
Philip Hughes makes the comment “as with all biblical doctrines, there are certain passages which bring a subject into a sharply defined focus and which therefore merit careful and detailed consideration.”4 In terms of presupposing the Christian faith, the text of Romans 1:18-21 could not be more pertinent to answer whether the Christian may assume the knowledge of God or if the Christian needs to offer evidences for the existence of God.
Exegesis of Romans 1:18-21
The text of Romans 1:18-32 is an explanation that does give a specific reason for false religions. It is because people morally suppress the truth of God that they are found guilty before God and under His wrath. False religions are a commentary as to man’s moral aversion to the truth. It is man’s rebellious state against God that spurns out false beliefs. Clearly, the attestation of false systems of belief does not mean man is a religious being (e.g. Freud’s neurosis) but rather that he believes those lies because of his rebellion towards God.
The argument from those who disagree with God’s condemnation usually consists of a challenge to God’s justice. Questioning God’s justice, the ungodly and unrighteous will argue that one is a Christian because he has grown up in a Christian culture or home. Had the same person grown up in some other part of the world he would not be a Christian. This they explain is why there are so many Hindus in India, Animists in Africa, and Voodoos in Haiti. The critic thinks he has God in a tight fix since God is argued to be unjust in condemning those who were never exposed to the gospel because of the culture or family they were born into. However, this again resorts to a functional view of absolute truth. Had the same person who is a Christian now grown up in another culture and therefore was not a Christian, as a result, he would still be wrong. The issue revolves not around what works for a given individual, rather it centers on what is absolute truth.
Whether or not mankind is condemned for not believing the gospel is like asking whether a person dies because he refused to take his medicine. In some sense this may be true, but in the larger sense it is the disease that kills, not so much the lack of medicine. Saying someone is condemned for not believing the gospel is true in a sense, but in a truer sense it is sin that is the problem. Therefore, the exclusive claims of Christ when He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life…. If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 14:6; 8:24), is not the reason for condemnation, rather it is sin.
The wrath of God “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18) is revealed from heaven. The present tense verb, ajpokaluvptetai, means an “uncovering or unveiling.” This would mean that with the inception of man’s sin, God’s wrath commences and continues against it. John 3:36 substantiates this point that the wrath of God abides on those who reject Him. The final consummation of God’s wrath against all sin is yet future (Romans 2:5).5
jAsevbeian refers to irreverence towards God and ajdikivan refers to injustice towards God. God’s nature is completely opposite of those who stand condemned. All the evidence, both natural and special revelation, provides mankind with confidence in God’s character. Though man is irreverent and unjust to God, the Creator will still be fair in His judgment. Furthermore, the Greek preposition, ejpiv, indicates God’s wrath is against sin, not the sinner. The genitives, ajsevbeian kaiV ajdikvian, refer to that which belongs to man; it is his nature in direct contrast to the just God.
The participle katecovntwn is derived from the preposition katav meaning “down upon, upon” (cf. Mk. 14:3; Acts 27:14)6 and the verb e[cw meaning “to hold” which combined together is translated to “hold down, or suppress something.”7 The further qualification of ejn ajdikiva communicates the extent of this suppression. A.T. Robertson comments, “Truth...is out in the open, but wicked men, so to speak, put it in a box and sit on the lid and ‘hold it down in unrighteousness.’”8
The causal conjunction, diovti, states the reason for God’s wrath (Rom. 1:19); it is “because that which is known of God is manifest in them....” Fanerovn emphasizes that which is toV gnwstoVn tou' qeou'9 as extremely clear due to God’s revelation. Furthermore, the preposition ejn with the locative case, “them” [aujtoiv"], indicates this knowledge of God is objective through the visible revelation of God’s creation “among them.”10
The natural man is able to see the evidence of God but he wants to scurry away from the revelation of God. Man is so sinful that he wants to be free of this knowledge of God and, hence, his responsibility to his Creator. Sin is the self-conscious act of the natural man attempting to alienate himself from God by hiding the truth.
The suppression is due to a hatred of God. Christians, on the other hand, will demonstrate this fact if they will argue presuppositionally that the existence of God in all its aspects is the only logical explanation for the universe, as it exists. Only the Christian faith can make sense of the world.
Van Til has stated “there can be no more fundamental question in epistemology than the question whether or not facts can be known without reference to God.”11 In other words, whether or not God exists is a metaphysical issue that is the most “fundamental question in epistemology.” The Christian draws his conclusion that God exists “by claiming not only that his position is self-consistent but that he can explain both the seemingly ‘inexplicable’ amenability of fact to logic and the necessity and usefulness of rationality in terms of Scripture.”12
The two phrases, “that which may be known of God” (v. 19), “the invisible things of him” (v. 20), and “truth” (v. 18) are synonymous. The true knowledge of God stands in apposition to taV ajovrata aujtou. Van Til comments,
The apostle Paul speaks of the natural man as actually possessing the knowledge of God (Rom. 1:19-21). The greatness of his sin lies precisely in the fact that “when they knew God, they glorified him not as God.” No man can escape knowing God. It is indelibly involved in his awareness of anything whatsoever. Man ought, therefore, as Calvin puts it, to recognize God. There is no excuse for him if he does not. The reason for his failure to recognize God lies exclusively in him. It is due to his willful transgression of the very law of his being.
The point of contact for the gospel, then, must be sought within the natural man. Deep down in his mind every man knows that he is the creature of God and responsible to God. Every man, at bottom, knows that he is a covenant-breaker. But every man acts and talks as though this were not so. It is one point that cannot bear mentioning in his presence.13
The “invisible things” conveys the meaning of what is not seen, but which is declared by the natural revelation. In other words, what can be known of God is evident by His creation. “From the creation of the world” taV ajovrata of God have been evident through creation (Rom. 1:20). Martin Luther comments that “the invisible things of God have always been recognized through the rational perception of the (divine) operations (in the world).”14
The content of taV ajovrata that are clearly seen are God’s “eternal power and Godhead.” It is because of (eij" toV ei\nai) God’s clear revelation to the fact that He is God that mankind is without excuse for rejecting Him. Scripture is conclusive that all mankind is aware of their responsibility to God on the basis of natural revelation. Man is aware, by virtue of his own creatureliness, that God is God and He alone is the originator of all life.
Though the non-Christian will suppress the truth of God, he also lives in light of God’s creation. It is at this point that Van Til would say that unredeemed man lives both rationally and irrationally. The non-Christian is irrational because he denies the only logical explanation of the universe, but he is also rational at times when he elevates himself to the position of God as the ultimate determiner of what is truth.15
Though a person may not have heard the gospel, he is judged guilty as to his suppression of thVn ajlhvqeian ejn ajdikiva. It is the ungodly and unrighteous who stand condemned for rejecting God’s revelation “by the things that are made” and so remain under His wrath.16 In regards to the unbeliever’s suppressed knowledge of God, Van Til writes:
To be sure, all men have faith. Unbelievers have faith as well as believers. But that is due to the fact that they too are creatures of God. Faith therefore always has content. It is against the content of faith as belief in God that man has become an unbeliever. As such he tries to suppress the content of his original faith.
…when this faith turns into unbelief this belief cannot succeed in suppressing fully the original faith in God. Man as man is inherently and inescapable a believer in God.17
According to Romans 1:18-21, the evidence of the natural world determines that all men have knowledge of God. However, many suppress that truth. Presuppositional apologetics aims to demonstrate the knowledge of God that man already has within him. Van Til explains: “The natural man at bottom knows that he is the creature of God. He knows also that he is responsible to God. He knows that he should live to the glory of God.”18
The presuppositionalist aims to refer the natural man to the knowledge of God that he already possesses. He will use apologetics to expose the fact that the natural man is suppressing that knowledge due to the sin within him. As Van Til states, “He is the man with the iron mask. A true method of apologetics must seek to tear off that iron mask.”19
The natural man who argues against the existence of God is not being rational or consistent with himself. The rationality that he is using is on the basis of the existence of a Creator who is rational. The natural man does not deny God due to a lack of evidence. He does so because his heart is sinful. He wants to distort the knowledge of God because his problem in rebelling against God is not due to lack of knowledge; rather his rebellion and suppression is due to his moral nature that is at enmity with God. Van Til would comment that the non-Christian needs to change his unbelieving presuppositions that are causing him to suppress the truth. His need is not for more knowledge of God; rather he needs the grace of God to change his heart.
Universally, all men are aware of God through natural revelation (Rom. 1) and through the conscience (Rom. 2) so that they are in no worse of a condition to understand and know the truth, even in the deepest, darkest parts of the jungle. Knowledge of God is equally revealed through nature and conscience no matter if a person is raised in a Christian or non-Christian culture. The problem is that man is so utterly sinful he suppresses the truth of God. The fact that man can “hold down” the knowledge of God means that gnw'si" is there in the first place.
All of mankind has knowledge of the Creator. He also possesses an inner witness to the truth (Rom. 2:14-16). The problem is that man takes the knowledge of God and filters it through his sinful mind in order to orient the revealed truth of God according to his logic and science. The natural man cannot interpret the knowledge of God because he is relying upon worldly wisdom (1 Cor. 1:21).
God’s revelation stands before fallen man as a challenge. It cannot be ignored. Man must either accept God’s revelation or suppress God’s revelation. When the natural man suppresses the knowledge of God he does this self-consciously. Those who cling to the wisdom of the world do so in opposition to the knowledge they already have. Van Til writes:
[Believers] present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is, the non-Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved. In so doing, we shall, to a large extent, he telling him what he “already knows” but seeks to suppress. This “reminding” process provides a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign grace may grant the non-Christian repentance so that he may know him who is life eternal.20
Conclusion
A person who responds to God’s natural revelation will infallibly, on God’s part, bring about sufficient conditions for the gospel to be preached to him. Einstein’s statement that “everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe–a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble,” failed to acknowledge the existence of a personal God. He took the natural revelation for granted by assuming “a spirit vastly superior to man” was nothing more than a “superior reasoning power.” 21 Since men like Einstein pervert the natural revelation, and do not glorify God as God (Rom. 1:21), if they hear the gospel it is to no avail. However, someone who did respond to the natural revelation and knew he had business to settle with God would not die without hearing and responding to the gospel. All this, of course, is deductive reasoning, but does seem to coincide with other Scriptures.
It cannot be said that man’s response to the light of nature is what will save him, for Scripture is clear: “Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Salvation is always by grace through faith in God. Paul’s defense of the gospel is argued by the example of Abraham (Rom. 4). Abraham was not saved in any manner different than Christians are saved today. The revelation of God has increased, therefore, God “...commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30) and “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31). Abraham was a man that grew up in paganism and yet Jesus said, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (Jn. 8:56). The conclusion then is clear: response to God the Father by creation and conscience will always bring about the sufficient conditions on God’s part either naturally by human means or supernaturally by God’s direct intervention for a person to hear the gospel.
1 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), p. 254.
2 C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1947).
3 Cornelius Van Til, “Response by C. Van Til,” Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, E.R. Geehan, ed. (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), p. 203.
4 Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “Crucial Biblical Passages For Christian Apologetics,” Jerusalem and Athens, p. 131.
5 Ernest R. Campbell, Romans, Vol. 1 (Silverton: Canyonview Press, 1987), p. 35.
6 William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), p. 264.
7 William F. Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 422.
8 A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1931), p. 328.
9 Ambiguity of the use of the neuter singular, gnwstovn, with the article tov as to whether or not this knowledge is potential or actual is best understood by the content of the passage. One expositor notes, “...what is known about God is understood, or the potential for knowing God is understood. The necessary assumption for either of these translations is that the people in question understand that there is a God to be known” (Bruce A. Baker, “Romans 1:18-21 and Presuppositional Apologetics,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 [July-September 1998]: 288).
10 Campbell, Romans, p. 37.
11 Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology (Philadelphia: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1969), p. 4.
12 Van Til, “My Credo,” Jerusalem and Athens, p. 20.
13 Van Til, Defense of the Faith, pp. 109, 111.
14 Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, trans. J. Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), p. 43.
15 Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), pp. 231-238.
16 Alan F. Johnson, Romans: The Freedom Letter, Vol. 1, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 36.
17 Van Til, Defense of the Faith, pp. 385-386.
18 Ibid., p. 118.
19 Ibid.
20 Van Til, “My Credo,” p. 21.
21 Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.
|
