{"id":2885,"date":"2017-01-15T21:03:18","date_gmt":"2017-01-15T21:03:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/?page_id=2885"},"modified":"2020-07-18T12:49:53","modified_gmt":"2020-07-18T12:49:53","slug":"attitude-matters-van-tils-apologetic-parts-1-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/?page_id=2885","title":{"rendered":"Attitude Matters: Van Til’s Apologetic Parts 1, 2, & 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 1:\u00a0 Attitude Matters <\/strong><\/p>\n

Does it matter what \u2018philosophical approach\u2019 you bring to personal (\u20181-2-1\u2019 or \u2018121\u2019) evangelism?\u00a0 Does it matter what your attitude is?\u00a0 Well, certainly!\u00a0 Since the Scriptural pattern is evident, we should follow the Lord Jesus who, when he taught, provoked a peculiar response . . . \u201cthe people were astonished at his doctrine:\u00a0 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 Admittedly, provoking astonishment may be difficult in our present age, but teaching and preaching with authority is straightforward.\u00a0 As God exhorted His prophet Isaiah (58:1), \u201cCry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.\u201d<\/p>\n

This essay is not written for anyone who is not already engaged in 121 evangelism, but rather for those who are already on the playing field, not just watching from the box seats, hot dog in hand, occasionally cheering or criticizing those who try.\u00a0 The \u2018how to\u2019 of sharing the Gospel is a simple enterprise; even children can be trained.\u00a0 If you are new to your Christian responsibility to follow the Lord in witnessing for Him, I refer you to the evangelism articles on this site, and especially my free e-book on the subject in the free e-bookstore.<\/p>\n

Rather, this essay speaks to the rational foundations of a Gospel witness, the apologetics, the verbal offense and defense necessary to uproot the lost worldview of the fellow you engage.\u00a0 The purpose of apologetics is to help the lost to see and to face reality, to put an end to his self-deception, to dissipate the clouds of delusion that keep him bound by self-destructive sin and from knowing his need for the Savior.<\/p>\n

Every Christian witness is an apologist, one who must be prepared to make a reasoned defense of Biblical truth (1 Peter 3:15).\u00a0 What is the role of apologetics?\u00a0 Greg Bahnsen explains:\u00a0 \u201cThe apologist defends what the theologian has learned, with the tools and insights refined by the philosopher, for the evangelistic purpose of seeing the unbeliever\u2019s heart and mind changed.\u201d\u00a0 Lest the novice be dismayed by the prospect of dealing with professional theologians and the arcane world of academic philosophical discourse, I\u2019ll point out that every believer becomes a theologian as he studies and understands his Bible, and every believer who learns common sense logic, which is simply part of daily life, becomes a philosopher, regardless of his expertise in arcane terminology.\u00a0 Your philosophy includes how you see the world, how you decide whether you know something, and what principles you use to live this life and to interact with God and man.\u00a0 Clearly, the Christian\u2019s philosophy <\/em>should be Biblical at every point.<\/p>\n

Greg Bahnsen, shortly before he died, wrote the book Van Til\u2019s Apologetic:\u00a0 Readings and Analysis, <\/em>published in 1998, a big volume full of excerpts from the extensive works of Cornelius Van Til (1895 \u2013 1987), a Reformed theologian both famous and infamous for insisting that presuppositional apologetics <\/em>is not only the Biblical pattern, but the only method that Christians should use in approaching the unbeliever.\u00a0 In a nutshell (a large nutshell, perhaps) the presup (I insist on the liberty to abbreviate) approach is to confront the unbeliever with the Christian worldview in its entirety, to show him that the Biblical claims about God, man, the universe, redemption, ethics, and everything<\/em> make perfect sense of reality and that the unbeliever\u2019s worldview does not . . . the skeptic, whether atheist, Mormon, or Muslim, has a worldview that is not internally consistent and is unlivable.\u00a0 Unlivable?\u00a0 The atheist, for example, does not live as if he is only a bundle of molecules without a coherent self and without an objective morality.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll pull nuggets from the book, commenting along the way, not necessarily distinguishing between Van Til\u2019s original writings and Bahnsen\u2019s commentary, since the two are very much in sync.\u00a0 My big caveat<\/em> up front is that while I am very much in tune with Van Til on apologetics, he loses his mind when his Calvinism seeps through.\u00a0 And Van Til is a completely committed Calvinist, wholly subscribed to Unconditional Election (The \u2018U\u2019 in TULIP) and a strong version of Calvinist \u2018sovereignty,\u2019 which supposes that every event in history is pre-ordained by God\u2019s sovereign plan.\u00a0 Of course if God is sovereign in that manner, then what\u2019s the point of apologetics?\u00a0 A good argument will have no more effect than a bad one; in fact the bad argument must have been part of the plan and the fact that I\u2019m criticizing Reformed theology right now must be fore-ordained, too!\u00a0 But everyone seems to have an unsavory dish or two on his smorgasbord, so we\u2019ll just enjoy the prime cuts of steak that Van Til and Bahnsen grill up for us.<\/p>\n

Bahnsen asks where in Paul\u2019s speech on Mars Hill (Acts 17) does he transition from theology to apologetics to evangelism . . . are there lines of demarcation?\u00a0 Of course there are no clean distinctions.\u00a0 Paul presupposed the truth of God\u2019s word in everything he said and applied such truth toward the converting of souls.\u00a0 And so apologetics is not separate from evangelism or theology.\u00a0 \u201cApologetics works to develop a method of gospel presentation that is consistent with the full teaching\u00a0 of Scripture and anticipates the personal needs of the unbeliever.\u201d\u00a0 We need to understand God\u2019s truth and apply it in a way to help the lost face his disconnect with reality . . . that he is a sinner headed for Hell and needs the Savior.\u00a0 The more the apologist \/ evangelist understands about the unbeliever\u2019s worldview, the more helpful he can be.<\/p>\n

Just yesterday I gave a packet of tracts to a fellow in his 30s.\u00a0 My wife and I were putting these packets on doorknobs in a neighborhood in our city and I caught the guy just as he was finishing up a plumbing job and loading equipment into his van.\u00a0 He is a Lutheran and promptly interacted as if he and I are both Christians, but simply members of different churches.\u00a0 I asked him where he would be when he died.\u00a0 He was confident of Heaven based on his pattern of \u201cdoing the right thing.\u201d\u00a0 Using the law (murder, adultery, lying , etc., including sins of the heart and mind) I pointed out that he (like me) is unrighteous and needs salvation as a gift.\u00a0 He professed that Jesus is his Savior,\u00a0 which I challenged by asking why he gave me the \u2018wrong answer\u2019 before, admitting that he trusted his self-righteousness for salvation.\u00a0 In brief, his Lutheran worldview is internally inconsistent, revealed even more dramatically when he insisted that many roads lead to God.\u00a0 I refuted that via John 14:6 which is what Jesus \u2013 the fellow\u2019s professed Savior \u2013 said about that.\u00a0 He can\u2019t be a follower of Jesus and deny the very words of Jesus.<\/p>\n

The conversation lasted about five minutes.\u00a0 I could tell from the beginning that he was anxious to get on the road for his next appointment, but I was able to keep him engaged to say what I believed he needed to hear.\u00a0 The mission is to challenge the lost with the perfectly consistent truth of the Gospel and point out that his own worldview doesn\u2019t make sense . . . and most especially that this is not a philosophical or theological debate; rather, that his eternity is at stake.\u00a0 It\u2019s personal!<\/p>\n

The Christian\u2019s witness must honor the Christ of whom we witness, \u201cIn whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.\u201d\u00a0 (Col 2:3)\u00a0 Do you believe that?\u00a0 Then you must presuppose <\/em>the truth of God\u2019s word as you represent Him.\u00a0 A nation\u2019s ambassador does not approach a foreign leader with probabilistic arguments about the existence of his King and his kingdom.\u00a0 He proclaims his King\u2019s message boldly.\u00a0 If his witness is rejected, he may well challenge (in effect), \u201cWhat, are you crazy?\u00a0 Don\u2019t you see the power and wealth of my King?\u00a0 Don\u2019t you see the consequences of rejecting His offer of peace?\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, the evangelist must not \u201cstrive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, instructing those that oppose themselves . . .\u201d\u00a0 (See 2 Tim 2:23-26).\u00a0 Yet the evangelist knows what reality is and must do his duty with the perfect confidence of an ambassador of the King of Kings.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.\u201d\u00a0 (Prov 1:7)\u00a0 As I begin to talk with an atheist, I will tell him up front that I\u2019m a Christian and assert that he has no intellectual ground to stand on without God . . . not just any god, but THE God as revealed in the Bible.\u00a0 I\u2019ll point out to him that he and I don\u2019t even exist \u2013 as persons \u2013 if we are just molecules in motion.\u00a0\u00a0Rational thought cannot be founded on random brain chemistry.\u00a0 Neither can objective morality.\u00a0 Thus I am cracking the foundation of his worldview on epistemological grounds.\u00a0 He cannot know anything <\/em>unless God is real.\u00a0 He can know, <\/em>however, once he confesses that he is made in the image of God, a person who can think and know rationally, make decisions, is morally accountable, and can recognize sin in his life and his need for the Savior.<\/p>\n

The presup approach puts the lost on the defensive immediately.\u00a0 He is \u2018in the dock\u2019 under accusation.\u00a0 C. S. Lewis wrote in his book, God in the Dock:\u00a0 Essays on Theology and Ethics, <\/em>\u201cThe ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge.\u00a0 For the modern man the roles are reversed.\u00a0 He is the judge:\u00a0 God is in the dock . . . The trial may even end in God\u2019s acquittal.\u00a0 But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the dock.\u201d<\/p>\n

A traditional or evidential approach, as for example in the works of Lee Strobel or William Lane Craig or J. Warner Wallace, may convince the skeptic that God probably exists, which also means that God may with some probability not exist.\u00a0 Then the case must be made that it\u2019s not just any god, but THE God of the Bible.\u00a0 Then the case for Jesus must be made along with a probabilistic case for the resurrection and the reliability of the Gospel accounts.\u00a0 This is a long road!\u00a0 All along the way, God is in the dock and the skeptic enjoys the role of judge.\u00a0 But the point is evangelism, isn\u2019t it?\u00a0 To save the lost fellow, he must humble himself, admitting that the accusations against him do, in fact, condemn him, and he needs forgiveness and mercy.\u00a0 Along the evidentialist road with its twists and turns and pleas for the rebel to consider the possibilities, it\u2019s hard to transition him from the judge\u2019s bench to the dock.<\/p>\n

The presup approach is also called a transcendental defense <\/em>by some, in that only the presups of the Christian worldview account for the universe, man, morality, rational thought, etc.\u00a0 Our worldview transcends what our eyes see and our ears hear, but only by starting from a transcendent position can we make sense of what we see and hear.\u00a0 The evangelist has the mindset that only the Biblical worldview with all its claims (creation, the Flood, history, incarnation, redemption, salvation, etc.) can make sense of reality.\u00a0 The skeptic doesn\u2019t see this, of course, because he is a rebel:\u00a0 he insists on his own autonomy apart from God or revelation.\u00a0 The evangelist confronts the skeptic with the God\u2019s-eye view of his environment and shows how everything makes sense, but only from the Biblical perspective.\u00a0 He can then step into the skeptic\u2019s worldview and point to the contradictions and mysteries.<\/p>\n

The presup argument is thereby indirect.\u00a0 The direct evidentialist argument attempts to build the house one brick at a time, hoping to slip in a foundation somewhere near the end.\u00a0 For example, \u201cNow that you believe that God probably exists and Jesus probably rose from the dead and the Bible is probably true in its historical accounts, now I encourage you to take a wild leap and believe the Bible cover to cover, trust Jesus as Savior and Lord, change your entire life and worldview, and admit you are headed for Hell and now beg for mercy.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s a tough sell, since you\u2019ve been honoring his rebellious judging skills along the way.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t want to build the fellow a new house one brick at a time.\u00a0 I want to throw the whole house at him!\u00a0 Why should this work?\u00a0 Because Scripture assures me that God has written his law in the heart of the most rabid atheist, that creation declares its Maker, and that God\u2019s word is recognizable as truth.\u00a0 On that last point consider the Gospel of John, which was written for the express purpose \u201cthat ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.\u201d\u00a0 (John 20:31)\u00a0 John\u2019s Gospel does not build a probabilistic case from within a skeptic\u2019s unbelieving worldview . . . it declares Him!<\/p>\n

Evangelism is not a math problem or a logic game.\u00a0 The mission is to reach heart and mind and provoke repentance and a reasoned faith.\u00a0 We should trust the Biblical pattern:\u00a0 God knows what is in man and how to reach him.\u00a0 While we do our part, we trust that the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:7-8).<\/p>\n

Edward J. Carnell was a student of Van Til\u2019s, but diverged from him in later years when Carnell taught that the Christian worldview can be treated as one hypothesis among many, to be evaluated by various \u2018independent means\u2019 including coherence, historical veracity, and personal satisfaction.\u00a0 Carnell:\u00a0 \u201cIn the contest of hypothesis-making . . . the winner is he who can produce the best set of assumptions to account for the totality of reality . . . Bring on your revelations!\u00a0 Let them make peace with the law of contradiction and the facts of history, and they will deserve a rational man\u2019s assent.\u201d\u00a0 In accord with the Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, Carnell wrote, \u201cFirst we must know in order that we might believe.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thus Carnell (and many others today) presuppose that logic, rational thought, and methods of historical analysis are more foundational than God\u2019s word.\u00a0 Who is in the dock?\u00a0 God exalts His own word above His very name (Ps 138:2) and quite rationally, when he made a promise to Abraham, \u201cbecause he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.\u201d\u00a0 (Heb 6:13)\u00a0 Where do logic, rational thought, and true history come from?\u00a0 Logic and rationality are integral to God\u2019s\u00a0 person; they don\u2019t float along independently of space \/ time and God himself.\u00a0 God is not beholden to some independent body of truths; He is the Author of truth.\u00a0 What about historical analysis?\u00a0 Unbelieving historians start with the presupposition that miracles cannot happen and that Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed at all, was no more than a man.\u00a0 Given those presuppositions, what do you think their conclusions will be regarding the validity and accuracy of the New Testament?\u00a0 Yet evidentialists step right into secular historical methods, hoping to convince the skeptic anyway.<\/p>\n

One small point . . . In a skeptical worldview, what is the value of true, accurate history?\u00a0 Why is a true historical account good<\/em>?\u00a0 That\u2019s a moral issue.\u00a0 Without objective morality, established by God, \u201cwho cannot lie,\u201d what is a history book but a collection of molecules in the form of paper and ink?\u00a0 Yes, we should use historical and archeological arguments . . . if these areas are the stumbling blocks of the lost . . . but we must use them affirmatively in the context of the Christian worldview.\u00a0 The sinner must be confronted with the personal nature of the issues, that God\u2019s revealed history puts him in the dock, that because the Gospel accounts are genuine God-breathed history, that he is facing judgment and needs forgiveness.\u00a0 The history of the cross and the resurrection has utterly personal consequences for everyone.<\/p>\n

Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cIn the first place, every Christian must tell the non-Christian that he must be saved <\/em>from his false views of God and himself.\u00a0 The greatest love can be shown for the lost only by those who have themselves sensed most deeply the lost condition from which they have been saved.\u00a0 The best physician is he who tells the patient who needs surgery that he must be rushed to the hospital, not he who tells him to take a strong sedative.\u201d\u00a0 Indeed.\u00a0 Always integrate apologetical arguments with a Gospel plea.\u00a0 Don\u2019t play with the debate.\u00a0 Use logic, use the moral law, use history, use science . . . but always as tools to open mind and heart to saving truth.<\/p>\n

Now, in examining your competing worldviews, you can\u2019t talk about everything at once with the skeptic, but every specific element must be placed in context.\u00a0 Bahnsen:\u00a0 \u201cThus, we do not attempt to defend the resuscitation of a particular human corpse, and then attempt to add an argument that this revived individual is also a divine person (etc.); rather, we set forth and defend the resurrection of the incarnate Son of God.\u00a0 Likewise, the Christian apologist does not argue for just any kind of abstract, general theism (\u2018a god of some sort or other\u2019), but rather for the specific conception of God revealed within the Christian Scriptures . . . apologetics becomes the vindication of the Christian worldview as a whole, not simply a piecemeal defense of isolated, abstractly defined, religious points.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is in contrast to \u2018traditional apologetics.\u2019\u00a0 If you read a variety of modern books on apologetics you\u2019ll likely see a pattern.\u00a0 There are two direct appeals to the unbeliever, seeking to establish first that God exists, and secondly that you can trust the New Testament, particularly about Jesus and His resurrection.\u00a0 Tragically, some modern traditionalists \/ evidentialists don\u2019t work at defending the Old Testament, because they are compromised on Genesis, buying into some form of theistic evolution.\u00a0 Pitiful!<\/p>\n

The traditional approach may seem quite instructive regarding the details of various philosophical and historical arguments, but it goes against the Biblical pattern of preaching to the lost.\u00a0 One not-so-minor issue is that it takes a lot of time to build a case from scratch, hoping that your lost friend is patient enough to hang in there for a few hours while you move from one probabilistic argument to another.<\/p>\n

Many years ago, having been exposed to traditional apologetics, I thought that was the only way to go when dealing with an atheist \/ evolutionist.\u00a0 Doing 121s on the street, when I met a skeptic I sighed internally and thought, \u201cOh my.\u00a0 Here we go.\u00a0 I\u2019ve got to convince him that God exists and that evolution is wrong . . . this will take a long time!\u201d\u00a0 In frustration, I searched for alternative approaches.\u00a0 By the grace of God I found some helpful apologetics sources and did my own Biblical analysis to develop my own approach.\u00a0 You can find the details in my essays in the Evangelism section of this site, including \u201cHow to Witness to an Atheist.\u201d\u00a0 What I had \u2018stumbled into\u2019 was Presuppositional Apologetics.\u00a0 (Thank you, Lord.)<\/p>\n

The bigger problem in modern evangelicalism is disdain for apologetics, disdain for reasoned argument.\u00a0 It\u2019s all about building relationships, they say, and showing people that following Jesus is cool, fun, and you can be happy and prosperous.\u00a0 Be a happy evangelical and your non-churchgoing neighbor will want to be a happy evangelical, too.\u00a0 Win him to you and you can introduce him to Jesus.\u00a0 Blah.\u00a0 The fundamentalists (Independent Fundamental Baptist churches) despise apologetics in a different way.\u00a0 Just preach the Gospel, they say, and then manipulate the fellow to pray a so-called \u2018Sinner\u2019s Prayer.\u2019\u00a0 Their \u2018philosophy\u2019 generates many false converts.<\/p>\n

But the mind and the heart, along with the conscience and the will, must be in sync for repentance to be real, for faith to be grounded in reality.\u00a0 \u201cIn thy light shall we see light.\u201d\u00a0 (Ps 36:9)\u00a0 \u201cI am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.\u201d\u00a0 (John 12:46)\u00a0 \u201cBut he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.\u201d\u00a0 (John 3:21)\u00a0 Saving faith is about seeing <\/em>reality and acting on what you know.\u00a0 The convert is not blind anymore, he\u2019s not deceived; rather, he sees clearly and understands for the first time in his life.\u00a0 \u201cThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.\u201d\u00a0 (Prov 9:10)\u00a0 True repentance turns the sinner away from the old paths.\u00a0 He now knows the wickedness of sin and willfully abhors it.\u00a0 True faith shows the well-lit path for following the Biblical Jesus day by day for the rest of his life.<\/p>\n

In abhorring apologetics, many evangelicals and fundamentalists abhor the very reasoned discourse that is necessary for the lost to understand that he must be saved and just what that means.\u00a0 Bahnsen:\u00a0 \u201cApologetics can be pursued with a humble boldness, one which displays true concern for the error of the unbeliever\u2019s thinking and the destructiveness of his ways.\u00a0 This does not mean giving even an inch on any issue of truth over which we disagree with the unbeliever.\u00a0 But it does mean, as Dr. Van Til would always say, that we keep buying the next cup of coffee for our opponent.\u201d\u00a0 Of course, the fellow we\u2019re trying to reach is not our \u2018opponent.\u2019\u00a0 Our opponent is Satan who has blinded the mind and heart of the lost fellow.\u00a0 We do our best to shine light on reality because the stakes are infinite, and we pray that the Holy Spirit illuminates and convicts so that our friend willfully chooses to repent and trust Christ.<\/p>\n

Van Til\u2019s system of presup apologetics can be summarized by the points below.\u00a0 I\u2019m using his outline, but edit it for efficiency\u2019s sake and with some of my own interpretation.\u00a0 (You can see Van Til\u2019s unedited work on page 610 of Bahnsen\u2019s book.)<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. In apologetics we must use the same principles we use in theology, especially the principle of the self-attesting authority of Scripture, that God speaks truth through His word in such a way that the image-bearers He designed can hear it.<\/li>\n
  2. Therefore, we don\u2019t make our appeal to alleged \u2018common notions\u2019 of unbelievers and believers, but rather to the points of contact we have with unbelievers due to the fact that they are made in the image of God, and that God\u2019s law is written in their conscience.<\/li>\n
  3. We set the Christian worldview squarely in opposition to that of the unbeliever. We point out that he has no autonomy because this is God\u2019s creation.\u00a0 As a man the unbeliever has no personhood and no possibility of rational thought without God as revealed in the Bible.<\/li>\n
  4. The entire set of the claims of Christianity are not only reasonable, they are the only rational way to make sense of anything, such as existence, design in creation, history, morality, relationships, life\u2019s meaning, beauty, justice, etc.<\/li>\n
  5. The argument for the Christian worldview must be by presupposition. \u201cGod\u2019s revelation is the sun from which all other light derives.\u201d\u00a0 Unless you start with the foundation of Biblical truth you won\u2019t be able to prove anything.\u00a0 (How can an atheist even begin a rational argument unless he can show that his brain chemistry can transcend itself and produce rational thought?)<\/li>\n
  6. When confronted with Truth the sinner can respond to the drawing \/ leading \/ convicting of the Holy Spirit to act on the evidence set before him. Here Van Til would see the Holy Spirit acting irresistibly only on the \u2018elect,\u2019 whereas I see an opportunity for everyone to respond, since all are drawn by the Spirit (John 12:32) and God is not willing that any should perish, but that all <\/em>should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), since God \u201cwill have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.\u201d\u00a0 (1 Tim 2:4)<\/li>\n
  7. Traditional methods of apologetics must be discarded. Here and in many other places, Van Til identifies traditional apologetics with Roman Catholic and evangelical (of the non-Reformed variety) scholarship.\u00a0 All such non-Reformed evangelicals are called \u2018Arminians\u2019 by Calvinists.\u00a0 Van Til likes to insist that presup apologetics is \u2018owned\u2019 by Calvinist theology.\u00a0 My view is not only is this false, but that TULIP destroys the purpose and the value of apologetics.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    As mentioned before, you obviously can\u2019t throw an entire worldview on the table in a moment of time for a comprehensive examination.\u00a0 But you can pick any serious subject and place it in the context of Biblical truth to show that it makes sense only in light of God\u2019s word.<\/p>\n

    Let me know what you think.<\/p>\n

      \n
    • drdave@truthreallymatters.com<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Part 2:\u00a0 Reality Matters<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Why is it that NASA and other space-faring wannabe organizations go on and on about a bit of water on Mars, and the potential for water under the icy crusts of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn?\u00a0 Their declared motivation is that water is necessary for life to exist.\u00a0 Therefore, if water is there and in abundance, then there is a good probability that life exists!\u00a0 Really?\u00a0 Just how does that follow?\u00a0 Isn’t there a difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition?<\/p>\n

      Supercomputers exist on Earth.\u00a0 The key chips in supercomputers are silicon-based.\u00a0 Silicon comes from sand.\u00a0 Mars has sand.\u00a0 Ergo, astronauts arriving on Mars have a good chance at discovering supercomputers on Mars!\u00a0 Yet life, as dependent on water as Intel chips are on silicon, is far more complex than supercomputers.<\/p>\n

      Why such a desperate hope to find life \u2013 even microbial life \u2013 on another planet?\u00a0 Here\u2019s the reason:\u00a0 If life is found on one more planet besides Earth, then evolution is proven to be true!\u00a0 Furthermore, then life must be ubiquitous across the universe!\u00a0 Now that is truly bold inductive reasoning:\u00a0 1 . . . 2 . . . infinity!\u00a0 Such is the desperation to believe (blindly) that evolution not only occurs, but is so powerful that there is no need for the Creator.\u00a0 Why the desperation, though?\u00a0 It\u2019s clear that if life is found on another planet, there will be a gigantic collective \u201cWhew!\u201d and rejoicing that evolution must actually work.\u00a0 Wait a second!\u00a0 Does this mean that even the most hardened atheistic scientists aren\u2019t sure?\u00a0 Despite all the dogmatic textbooks crammed down our children’s throats, and all the emphatic statements from media scientists like, \u201cEvolution is a fact!\u201d and \u201cNo reputable scientist doubts evolution!\u201d, their worry is a palpable admission of uncertainty.<\/p>\n

      So, if you actually found a supercomputer on Mars, might you suspect that someone had left it there, and others designed and built it?\u00a0 Now, I don\u2019t expect life to show up anywhere else than on Earth, at this stage in the history of the universe.\u00a0 (Things may change in the ages to come.)\u00a0 But if it does, its extraordinary complexity is certainly <\/em>due to the awesomeness of the Creator.\u00a0 Not convinced?\u00a0 See my free ebook on this subject and the many essays that will leave you with no further doubts.<\/p>\n

      I recently finished reading a bi-weekly magazine, Science News<\/em> (11\/12\/2016) and noticed a motivating theme behind many of the articles.\u00a0 One discussed issues with Saturn\u2019s rings; for example, \u201cIt\u2019s hard to make rings in the last 100 million years.\u201d\u00a0 And, \u201cEsposito argued that despite some youthful appearances, the rings are ancient . . .\u201d\u00a0 You see, the motive <\/em>for analyzing the dynamics of the rings is to fit the observable data into an evolutionary universe.<\/p>\n

      Another news item discussed fossils of the placoderm, an extinct armored fish that had bony jaws, although not the same jaw design as that of \u2018modern\u2019 fish, along with dogs, humans, etc.\u00a0 Some paleontologists now speculate that the \u2018modern\u2019 jaw descended from placoderms.\u00a0 \u201cWe\u2019ve suddenly realized we had it all wrong.\u201d\u00a0 (That happens a lot in the evolutionism industry.)\u00a0 Again, the entire motivation for study is to fit observable fossil data into the evolutionary scheme.<\/p>\n

      Another reported study analyzed MRI data to correlate what happens in the brain when lying,\u00a0 tentatively concluding that lies are more likely when activity decreases in the amygdalae, brain structures associated with emotions.\u00a0 It\u2019s clear that the underlying thesis of the researchers is that brain chemistry is everything, no need to invoke a mind, a soul, or free will.<\/p>\n

      What is common to these research initiatives?\u00a0 (There are several more such items in the very same issue.)\u00a0 What motivates the smart people who devote chunks of their lives and who spend big chunks of taxpayer dollars to getting answers?\u00a0 It\u2019s an unbelieving worldview, namely that of atheism \/ naturalism \/ materialism.\u00a0 The Saturn ring observations will only be modeled and interpreted <\/em>within a billions-of-years Big Bang paradigm.\u00a0 Fossil data will only be interpreted <\/em>within the fantasy of evolution.\u00a0 Human behavior will only be interpreted <\/em>in terms of brain chemistry, with humans seen as merely another animal species.<\/p>\n

      In my previous essay on Cornelius Van Til\u2019s approach to presuppositional apologetics (See Greg Bahnsen\u2019s book, Van Til\u2019s Apologetic:\u00a0 Readings & Analysis<\/em>), I pointed out that the foundation of the evangelist\u2019s approach to the skeptic must be to confront him with the Biblical worldview and explain how it \u2013 and only it \u2013 makes sense of reality, of creation, of man\u2019s existence, of logic and truth and beauty; and that the unbeliever\u2019s worldview, whether atheistic or Roman Catholic or Buddhist, doesn\u2019t.\u00a0 Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cWe do not seek to defend theism in apologetics and Christianity in evidences, but we seek to defend Christian theism in both courses.\u201d\u00a0 Namely, we\u2019re not trying to convince the lost fellow that some kind of god <\/em>exists, but that creation is due to the Creator described in the Bible, who offers redemption via Jesus Christ, and that he had better repent and trust the one and only Savior.<\/p>\n

      We can invoke arguments about Saturn\u2019s rings or the fossil record or human consciousness, but we must do so in a package that makes the Gospel personal, personally challenging the lost to transcend his oh-so-tiny materialistic worldview and recognize his personal accountability to THE GOD who knows his every thought, word, and deed.\u00a0 Consider the Scripture, John 1:12.\u00a0 What does \u201creceived Him\u201d mean?\u00a0 It means the whole package of Christ as Creator, Judge, Messiah, and Savior.\u00a0 And so the whole package must be conveyed.\u00a0 The task of the evangelist is to communicate the package efficiently and powerfully, with none of the equivocation so common in evangelical culture.<\/p>\n

      Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cThe fight between Christianity and non-Christianity is, in modern times, no piece-meal affair.\u00a0 It is the life and death struggle between two mutually opposed life and world views.\u201d\u00a0 The attack may arise from astronomy or geology or biology or history.\u00a0 But back of the attack is a worldview that denies the existence of God, denies the fellow\u2019s accountability for his sins, and denies his very existence as a created being made in the image of God, which enables him to have a consciousness that transcends brain chemistry, and to make use of God\u2019s very own character<\/em>-istics such as logic, truth, and integrity \u2013 the valuing of truthful analysis and reporting.\u00a0 Challenge him on his worldview, which cannot account for science, rational thought, or even sensible communication between two personal beings.\u00a0 In his view, our one-to-one must simply be acoustic noise associated with two clumps of molecules.<\/p>\n

      The \u2018natural man\u2019 has the ability to transcend his worldview if you provoke him to, since he is an image-bearer, has a God-given conscience that can be challenged on the basis of moral law (10 commandments), and is one of the \u2018all\u2019 who are \u2018drawn\u2019 by the Holy Spirit who works to bring understanding and conviction on the inside while the evangelist makes his plea on the outside.\u00a0 In order to honor God, the Christian witness must embrace this Biblical pattern, always looking to penetrate the darkness, the cloud of delusion, always on offense.\u00a0 Consider the preaching of John the Baptist \u2013 or pick your favorite prophet.\u00a0 No defensiveness there.\u00a0 Neither did Elijah give any credence to the possibility that Baal\u2019s prophets might have some valid points.\u00a0 Paul \u201cconfounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving <\/em>that this is very Christ.\u201d\u00a0 (Acts 9:22)\u00a0 Peter \u201clet all the house of Israel know assuredly, <\/em>that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.\u201d\u00a0 (Acts 2:36)<\/p>\n

      I\u2019m not discussing specific tactics in this essay.\u00a0 I have done much of that in the material on this site, including the essays on Evangelism and the free ebook on that subject.\u00a0 It\u2019s not hard!\u00a0 I\u2019ve worked hard to make it simple and compact so you can skip all the errors I used to make!\u00a0 Yet tactics should be subservient to strategy, and strategy must be dictated by principle . . . Bahnsen:\u00a0 \u201cApologetics works to develop a method of Gospel presentation that is consistent with the full teaching of Scripture and anticipates the personal needs of the unbeliever.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Bahnsen again:\u00a0 \u201cIf the believer and the unbeliever do not claim to have knowledge, but are content simply to exchange personal opinions (\u2018I believe the Bible about Christ\u2019s virgin birth\u2019; \u2018I do not believe it is possible for a virgin to give birth\u2019), they are not rationally addressing religious issues or engaging in apologetics.\u00a0 They are simply sharing autobiographical details that can be ignored.\u00a0 The issue is whether either side\u2019s personal beliefs are known to be true or not.\u00a0 To argue about knowledge is to argue about the objective state of affairs, not simply about subjective commitments or feelings.\u201d<\/p>\n

      A direct argument <\/em>can be made with someone who shares relevant assumptions (or presuppositions).\u00a0 For example, I can make direct arguments via Scripture, and therefore conduct apologetics, with a Calvinist who takes the Bible as God\u2019s word.\u00a0 The atheist doesn\u2019t share that presupposition.\u00a0 For that matter, neither does the Roman Catholic, who elevates papal authority, nor does the Mormon who elevates the Book of Mormon.\u00a0 Nevertheless, all share a moral consience, and so God\u2019s moral law can\u00a0 be used to challenge the heart.\u00a0 With the Catholic or Mormon, for example, I can discuss salvation by going quickly to the 10 commandments, but with the atheist, I typically have to spend a short time on creation (design) and consciousness (the \u2018brain chemistry\u2019 issue), before transitioning to his objective \u2013 in his own mind \u2013 guilt under God\u2019s laws.\u00a0 The atheist thereby requires an indirect argument <\/em>. . . I must challenge his worldview\u2019s presuppositions so he can see how his life makes sense only through a Biblical perspective.\u00a0 Now, with the Calvinist, I not only make direct Scriptural arguments, but I also challenge his deterministic worldview, within which he cannot live consistently. \u00a0Namely, he lives as if he makes choices and he lives as if he can make a difference and as if God just might save a dear loved one . . . he pleads with that loved one as if his pleas might tip the balance.<\/p>\n

      Van Til reacted strongly to criticisms that presuppositional apologetics is guilty of\u00a0 \u2018fideism,\u2019 supposedly asking the skeptic to make a blind leap of faith to the Christian worldview.\u00a0 It\u2019s a misinformed and false accusation.\u00a0 The presup approach, with its emphasis on fully examining opposed worldviews, is completely rational.\u00a0 How can any other approach be termed rational, if the apologist either ignores the differences in foundational assumptions, or else willingly subjects himself to the insanity of the materialistic worldview?\u00a0 Van Til:\u00a0 The unbeliever\u2019s position \u201cought to be refuted by a reasoned argument, instead of by ridicule and assumption . . . Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold.\u00a0 It is not merely as reasonable as other positions, or a bit more reasonable than other positions; it alone is the natural and reasonable position for man to take . . . the only <\/em>position that does not make nonsense of human experience.\u201d\u00a0 So challenge the unbeliever with this truth, which gives him an opportunity to open his mind and his heart.<\/p>\n

      It is traditional apologetics, sometimes termed evidentialism<\/em> that, in arguing probabilistically for evidence for God and probabilistically for the reliability of the New Testament, that requires a blind leap of faith (fideism) at some point to transition the skeptic from judge and jury (condescending to consider your arguments), to a whole-hearted, humble<\/em> repentance and faith that enables salvation.\u00a0 Remember that salvation is the issue and the objective.\u00a0 These aren\u2019t parlor games.<\/p>\n

      What about this objection:\u00a0 \u201cHey, you must <\/em>argue about probabilities because there is no such thing as an absolutely compelling proof.\u201d\u00a0 Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cIn this way of putting the matter there is a confusion between what is objectively valid and what is subjectively valid to the natural man.\u201d\u00a0 Bahnsen:\u00a0 \u201cAlthough this is overlooked in casual conversation, it is well to remember that there is a conceptual difference between \u2018certainty\u2019 (a property of propositions) and \u2018confidence\u2019 (a property of persons).\u00a0 Likewise, there is technically a difference between the \u2018soundness\u2019 of an argument and its \u2018persuasiveness.\u2019\u00a0 Only the latter is relative to people.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Another way to say this is that you, as a person, can be subjectively convinced wholeheartedly enough to make big decisions, decisions about whom to marry, which academic major to choose, whether or not to cross a street after looking \u2013 merely looking \u2013 to see whether a bus is coming.\u00a0 You don\u2019t need mathematical (propositional) proof.\u00a0 In fact if someone gives you what is apparently sound mathematical and physics-based proof that the street is free of traffic, yet you see <\/em>a bus coming, you will ignore that propositional apologist.<\/p>\n

      Hey, remember the big picture here . . . it\u2019s all about evangelism.\u00a0 When heart and mind are convinced of the truth of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit . . . who has been working to convict all along . . . will seal the deal with regeneration and provide all the proof the new convert needs.\u00a0 For example, at this point in my life am I still thinking that God probably <\/em>exists?\u00a0 Am I just working to tack on more 9\u2019s to a 99.99% probability?\u00a0 Of course not.\u00a0 Do I think of the existence of my wife and children as probable?\u00a0 Could you convince me that my wife and children have some probability of non-existence?\u00a0 And so it is with presup apologetics.\u00a0 We confront the unbeliever with the whole package, the whole worldview . . . at least enough for him to understand reality sufficiently to make a life vs. death, Heaven vs. Hell decision.\u00a0 Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cThe natural man must be blasted out of his hideouts, his caves, his last lurking places.\u201d\u00a0 Arguing probabilities, as the evidentialists do, lowers the claims of God on man.<\/p>\n

      In doing evangelism, we trust that this is the Biblical pattern that the Holy Spirit has given us and that He will work with.<\/em><\/p>\n

      By the way, if you\u2019re not already trying to reach out with the Gospel, via 121s and \/ or tracts, then this essay is totally irrelevant to you.\u00a0 In that case your only question about apologetics may as well be, \u201cWhat strategy should I use for not <\/em>talking to people?\u201d<\/p>\n

      Now, when Van Til invokes his Calvinism, he goes too far:\u00a0 \u201cAs for the question whether the natural man will accept the truth of such an argument, we answer that he will if <\/em>God pleases by his Spirit to take the scales from his eyes and mask from his face.\u201d\u00a0 Van Til is a committed Calvinist.\u00a0 He believes that God will regenerate only the pre-ordained-from-before-the-foundation-of-the-universe elect.\u00a0 God will regenerate with \u2018irrestible grace\u2019 only the elect by His sovereign will.\u00a0 No others get to go.\u00a0 Within the same paragraph, though, he contradicts himself:\u00a0 \u201cApologetics is valuable to the precise extent that it presses the truth upon the attention of the natural man.\u201d\u00a0 Therefore, good arguments are more valuable than bad arguments, according to Van Til . . . which is surely the thrust of his entire published works!\u00a0 But in Calvinist sovereignty and Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace, what\u2019s the practical difference between a good and a bad argument?\u00a0 Will God fail to regenerate someone who hears a bad argument?\u00a0 Will He regenerate a non-elect fellow who hears a really good argument?\u00a0 Will the date of regeneration be delayed for someone who hears nothing but bad arguments for years and then finally <\/em>hears a good pitch?\u00a0 Sigh.<\/p>\n

      Van Til\u2019s mind must be shut off when he contradicts his Calvinism, although expressing his heart:\u00a0 \u201cFor if<\/em> men are told the truth about themselves, and if <\/em>they are warned against the false remedies that establish men in their wickedness, then<\/em>, by the power of the Spirit of God, they will flee to the Christ through whom alone they must be saved.\u201d\u00a0 I agree!\u00a0 Those ifs<\/em> matter!\u00a0 What the evangelist does matters.\u00a0 What the sinner chooses matters.\u00a0 In Unconditional Election they don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

      Let\u2019s get back to \u2018rational Van Til\u2019:\u00a0 \u201cRepentance means the recognition of bankruptcy.\u00a0 It involves the suppliant\u2019s attitude \u2013 begging for mercy, for pardon, for life.\u00a0 It means fleeing from the City of Destruction and pressing on to the Celestial City even when Mr. Worldly Wise Man and all his friends are going in the other direction.\u00a0 It means bearing the offense of the cross.\u00a0 Will any of the wise of the world accept his Gospel and repent?\u201d\u00a0 The answer is yes.<\/em>\u00a0 The Bible is clear that the Gospel has the power to save and the Holy Spirit will bring conviction, if the sinner chooses.<\/p>\n

      But recall what you, as the evangelist, are trying to accomplish \u2013 to help the lost uproot and cast aside his entire way of thinking about himself, about God, about the world, about his purpose and manner of life.\u00a0 You don\u2019t do this one little probability at a time.\u00a0 He\u2019s got to agree with God that he\u2019s been completely wrong <\/em>about everything that matters.\u00a0 In my experience it is clear that it is harder for most people to fully embrace \u201cI have been wrong!\u201d than it is to repent from the sins of the flesh, including drunkenness, fornication, greed, anger, etc. To admit \u201cI am wrong!\u201d and proceed to act out on that means a worldview transformation.\u00a0 Therefore . . .<\/p>\n

      You can\u2019t sneak up on people and hope to fool them into conversion.\u00a0 You can\u2019t just drop hints.\u00a0 You can\u2019t invite them to church and hope they absorb it.\u00a0 You can\u2019t just win them to yourself and hope they find Jesus attractive, too.\u00a0 You\u2019ve got to confront them with THE TRUTH!\u00a0 You\u2019ve got to risk a less-than-enthusiastic reaction when they actually comprehend what you are saying.<\/em><\/p>\n

      I see multitudes of evangelical church members who came over from the Roman Catholic church, or from an unchurched \u2018worldly\u2019 background, or from wherever, who pick up a little \u2018loving Jesus\u2019 here, or a little \u2018following Jesus\u2019 there, and a little social gospel cheeseburgers for the homeless hither, and a little have-a-great-marriage camp yon.\u00a0 It\u2019s all very . . . nice<\/em>.\u00a0 But nobody ever gets lost (wrong) \u2013 in his own mind \u2013 and so nobody ever gets saved.<\/p>\n

      Van Til on the relationship of reason to faith:\u00a0 \u201cWhen God has reasoned with us and changed our minds till our every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, we must use our minds, our intellect, our reason, our consciousness, in order to receive and re-interpret the revelation God has given of Himself in Scripture.\u00a0 This is the proper place of reason in theology.\u00a0 There is no conflict between this reason and faith, since faith is the impelling power which urges reason to interpret aright.\u201d<\/p>\n

      The unbeliever doesn\u2019t buy this.\u00a0 He thinks he is employing reason in an entirely self-sufficient way.\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t worry about his brain chemistry getting in the way and doesn\u2019t worry that the logic he uses transcends what\u2019s in the periodic table.<\/p>\n

      The unbelieving scientist can, indeed, do science<\/em>, but only by employing transcendental principles.\u00a0 The believing scientist, even if (individually) he is not as skilled as some of his Nobel Prize winning peers, is far more in touch with reality because of his transcendent perspective.<\/p>\n

      For example, can the world\u2019s best unbelieving biologist properly understand a cow?\u00a0 Both the Christian and the atheistic scientist can quantify milk and protein production (along with methane), can investigate genetic differences among breeds, and may even do innovative work in optimizing breeds.\u00a0 But only the Christian understands that cows are a blessing from God for man\u2019s benefit, that they are creatures that ought not <\/em>\u2013 on an objective moral basis \u2013 be mistreated, and that its DNA is designed.\u00a0 Cows aren\u2019t evolved.\u00a0 In fact, only by recognizing design can some advances be made.\u00a0 The idea of junk DNA, for example, is entirely an evolutionary idea and has hindered progress in genetics and medicine for many years.\u00a0 Only by finally recognizing design \u2013 purpose \u2013 across the entire genome of a given organism (including humans), geneticists and biochemists are beginning to figure out just how life works at the cellular level.<\/p>\n

      My wife and I recently took a trip to the Grand Canyon.\u00a0 Only because we are Christians can we see it as a consequence of the Genesis Flood\u2019s aftermath, a judgment upon man\u2019s sins some 4400 years ago.\u00a0 The evolutionarily disabled, including our bus driver \/ tour guide, can only see it as a result of some random processes of erosion, which is incredibly blind.\u00a0 The features of the canyon speak to awesome and powerful scouring action by vast quantities of flowing water.\u00a0 You can see the \u2018scour marks\u2019 everywhere.\u00a0 If normal erosional processes are the root cause, why aren\u2019t Grand Canyons everywhere?\u00a0 The natural man misses not only the physics and geology of it, but also the history and, above all, the moral significance.\u00a0 (Yes, we passed out\u00a0tracts to about a hundred folks on this trip, tracts I’ve designed on the fossil record and the sedimentary layers.)<\/p>\n

      The non-Christian chemist can marvel at the fascinating diversity of organic compounds made possible only by the structure of the carbon atom, but only the Christian chemist can see that the purpose <\/em>for the design <\/em>of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and the character of their interacting forces allow the bodies of image-bearers to live and move and have their being within their Creator\u2019s realm.<\/p>\n

      Likewise, the Christian astronomer thanks God for the wonderful stability of our sun and its consistent radiation output, for the delicate balance of the Earth\u2019s orbit and the tilt of its axis and its rotation to allow for a livable environment . . . yea, much more than livable, enabling even prosperity despite the Fall and its consequences, a Fall incomprehensible to the natural man, who can see only luck, chaos, and yet an inscrutable order and regularity.<\/p>\n

      Likewise, the Christian historian sees a rational arc of history from creation to the final judgments to the Millennium to the ages to come.\u00a0 He sees Israel\u2019s regathering as the prophetic herald of the end times.\u00a0 Why do so many secularists despise Israel?\u00a0 They don\u2019t see the spiritual war and scoff at the Christian\u2019s warnings of Tribulation to come.\u00a0 The unbelieving historian cannot understand history.<\/p>\n

      The non-Christian\u2019s view of history, science, purpose, meaning, the nature of man and the purpose of it all is so small.<\/em>\u00a0 God\u2019s reality is bigger than that.\u00a0 The Christian sees so much more now and envisions so much more in the future . . . not just a generalized future, but his own future <\/em>as a child of God, an inheritor of his Savior\u2019s promises, as one who will live and learn and reign and love and fellowship for eternity future.<\/p>\n

      There is much, much more to be gleaned from Van Til, particularly the rational Van Til.\u00a0 Better yet, there is much more and better <\/em>that you and I can do to sanctify our own perspective as growing children of the coming Kingdom, and to share that perspective with others blinded by sin, deceived by the small and corrupt wisdom of this world, who simply need a bit of rationality to open their minds and grapple with their need for the Savior.<\/p>\n

        \n
      • drdave@truthreallymatters.com<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        Part 3:\u00a0 Where do you start?<\/strong><\/p>\n

        . . Let\u2019s listen in on a pastoral staff\u2019s brainstorming meeting on how to grow their church . . . <\/em><\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/em>\u201cWe\u2019ve got to be relevant to our community, so how about a big food drive for the poor?\u00a0 Everybody will notice that!\u201d<\/p>\n

        \u201cSure.\u00a0 Write that down, along with the idea of collecting shoes for orphans.\u201d<\/p>\n

        \u201cWhat about the young people, the kids?\u00a0 We\u2019ve got to be relevant for the kids!\u201d<\/p>\n

        \u201cMaybe we could recruit . . . or hire . . . some high quality musical talent for our, uh, worship service?\u00a0 If we don\u2019t put on the best show, the kids will find some other place to rock.\u201d<\/p>\n

        \u201cGreat, good idea.\u00a0 Write that down.\u00a0 What about the adults?\u201d<\/p>\n

        \u201cWell, the ones with kids are hooked already, as long as we keep the kids happy.\u00a0 The rest of them . . . hey, we could do a teaching series on how to have great sex in your marriage or, uh, with your significant other.\u201d<\/p>\n

        \u201cYeah, and another series on money . . . how to make it and leave a financial legacy.\u00a0 We can launch that with a full spectrum marketing campaign!\u201d<\/p>\n

        \u201cGreat.\u00a0 What about people who actually want to be involved, you know, doing something?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

        \u201cWell, we can always use more parking lot monitors and nursery workers.\u00a0 And more hosts for small group meetings.\u00a0 Hosts don\u2019t need to actually know anything . . . we can provide them with talking points every week.\u00a0 Anything really important we need to do, the pastoral staff can handle it, of course.\u201d<\/p>\n

        \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.<\/p>\n

        What are the goals of American churches?\u00a0 What are the goals of American Christians?\u00a0 Are they the same?\u00a0 You might sit down with your family and write down what your goals are . . . what you think God\u2019s will is for your lives . . . and then write down what you think the goals are for your church.\u00a0 Don\u2019t go to your church\u2019s mission statement for that.\u00a0 Just analyze what the church does every week and what it spends money on.\u00a0 That will tell you what they value and what they\u2019re trying to accomplish.\u00a0 And the same for you.\u00a0 What do you do every week and what do you spend money and time on?<\/p>\n

        Where should you start if you\u2019re going to figure out your life mission, from scratch?\u00a0 This may sound crazy, but the place to start is theology, your worldview, what you believe it\u2019s all about, what you think about reality, the reality of who you are, who God is, what the past teaches, what you think the future holds, your responsibilities to God and how you think God wants you to deal with others.<\/p>\n

        Simple, right?\u00a0 Actually, it is, if you\u2019re a born again Christian and have a Biblically based worldview.\u00a0 (The second does not necessarily follow from the first.)<\/p>\n

        I\u2019ve read and written about some of the work of Cornelius Van Til, a luminary in 20th<\/sup> century apologetics.\u00a0 He espoused and defended what is called presuppositional apologetics, <\/em>the approach I hold to because I am absolutely convinced it is the Biblical pattern for reaching the lost with the Gospel, in addition to discipling \/ training young believers to defend their faith.\u00a0 In Van Til\u2019s book, The Defense of the Faith (1955)<\/em>, he gives us a glimpse into his mindset:<\/p>\n

        \u201cNow the basic structure of my thought is very simple.\u00a0 I have never been called upon to work out any form of systematic theology.\u00a0 My business is to teach apologetics.\u00a0 I therefore presuppose <\/em>the Reformed system of doctrine.\u201d<\/p>\n

        Namely, he doesn\u2019t start with the latest marketing ideas, nor an analysis of culture to determine the most relevant way to reach people.\u00a0 Neither does he start with philosophical ideas, nor the writings of the so-called \u2018church fathers.\u2019\u00a0 He starts with what he believes is Biblical doctrine.<\/p>\n

        Now for the most part, his apologetics is, indeed, built on the Bible and there he gets it right.\u00a0 Where, on occasion, he gets it wrong, is where his Reformed doctrine steers him wrong.\u00a0 In fact, as I\u2019ve argued in other essays, if you start with Reformed doctrine, there is no use for apologetics at all.\u00a0 Everything . . . I mean everything <\/em>. . . is swallowed up by the Calvinist perversion of the idea of sovereignty, and the salvation of every individual in history <\/em>is settled by Unconditional Election.\u00a0 Game over.\u00a0 Go home.<\/p>\n

        OK, so that\u2019s the big caveat on Van Til.\u00a0 When he forgets his TULIP, he gets a lot right and I love the guy for that.\u00a0 By the way, I don\u2019t recommend The Defense of the Faith<\/em> for you to read.\u00a0 I\u2019ve got the 2008 unabridged 4th<\/sup> edition and in this essay I\u2019ll pull some \u2018relevant\u2019 nuggets out for you.\u00a0 Van Til is often wordy and a bit esoteric in style so, since life is short and there are only so many books you can read, pick one of the other books I\u2019ve recommended for nighttime reading.<\/p>\n

        The opening dialogue in this essay illustrates the tendency of evangelicals to start anywhere at all, even a brainstorming session, to figure out how to do what God already designed long ago.\u00a0 Whether it\u2019s evangelism or discipleship, noting that these two areas pretty much encompass the vital aspects of the Christian life, we start with God.\u00a0 And we learn of God from His revealed word.<\/p>\n

        Van Til writes that there is too much discussion over whether <\/em>God exists, and too little about what kind <\/em>of God we are talking about.\u00a0 Classical apologists weave clever yet obtuse arguments for the existence of some kind of god.\u00a0 We rather should start with God \u2013 as revealed in the Bible \u2013 and declare His nature boldly and forthrightly.<\/p>\n

        For example, God is holy and just.\u00a0 He is loving and merciful.\u00a0 He offers forgiveness, yet pays for it Himself (the cross).\u00a0 He is omniscient and omnipotent.\u00a0 These characteristics resonate with the heart and mind of man, since we are made in His image.\u00a0 Every lost man instinctively knows that if God is there, He must be holy and just.\u00a0 Every man knows that God must be loving enough to give us a way out of a judgment we certainly deserve.\u00a0 Every man knows that all the wicked of the ages must be brought to justice.\u00a0 And every man, when confronted by the law \u2013 the 10 commandments \u2013 has conscience enough to know that he will see judgment.<\/p>\n

        The evangelist must make these points efficiently, compassionately, and fervently.\u00a0 The Christian mom and dad must teach their children this theology to enable them to confront their Judge and Savior, too.<\/p>\n

        In short, the heart, mind, and conscience of man will resonate with truth so that you don\u2019t . . . and you shouldn\u2019t . . . try to convince him that a generic god exists.\u00a0 We\u2019re not preaching or teaching the Muslim or Roman Catholic or Hindu gods.\u00a0 And we\u2019re not going to reach entertainment-addicted, self-absorbed Americans with worldly methods.\u00a0 You might get them to enjoy the show<\/em>, but you won\u2019t get them saved<\/em>, unless you eyeball them with Truth.\u00a0 That at least gives them a chance.<\/p>\n

        This essay is not about methods.\u00a0 I\u2019ve covered methods in many other pieces on this site.\u00a0 This essay is really about foundational theology and principles that underlie both evangelism and discipleship.\u00a0 It\u2019s a very modest survey, yet I hope that some nuggets will be beneficial.<\/p>\n

        Van Til:\u00a0 \u201c. . . the attributes of God may also be summed up by saying that God is absolute personality.<\/em>\u201d\u00a0 God is THE source of the idea and the existence of personality.\u00a0 In atheism there are no persons, just clumps of molecules bumping around.\u00a0 But in reality<\/em>, namely this world we live in, we are persons because we are made in the image of God.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

        \u201cThere were no principles of truth, goodness, or beauty that were next to or above God according to which He patterned the world.\u00a0 The principles of truth, goodness, and beauty are to be thought of as identical with God\u2019s being; they are the attributes of God . . . Non-Christian systems of philosophy do not deny personality to God, at least some of them do not, but, in effect, they all agree in denying absolute personality to God.\u201d<\/p>\n

        This decisively answers the question of Plato\u2019s character Euthyphro, \u201cIs the good good because God says it is, or does God say it is because it is good.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s a false dilemma.\u00a0 The first choice makes God\u2019s laws arbitrary, the second puts qualities like goodness above and beyond God, as if God entered into our universe where they already existed.\u00a0 The Biblical solution is that goodness, love, beauty, justice . . . indeed all virtues . . . are the very nature of God.\u00a0 We find good to be good, and evil to be evil, because our nature<\/em>, reflected in what we call conscience, has been formed from God\u2019s character.\u00a0 Sin, of course, mars us and warps us, but that\u2019s our fault.\u00a0 Christ came to restore us, in toto, not merely saving us, but transforming us so that, eventually, once resurrected, we will have the eternal unmarred nature we were intended to have from the beginning.<\/p>\n

        Van Til stresses the point that, although we are created in His image, yet \u201cman must always be different from God.\u201d\u00a0 We can never outgrow our creaturehood.\u00a0 We exist and operate on a different scale.\u00a0 One of the advantages of our finiteness is that we can grow throughout eternity, never bored, never exhausting the infinite riches of our relationship with the Author of everything.\u00a0 Atheists who despise the concept of Heaven on the presumption that it will be boring are fools indeed.\u00a0 (I expand on this in my free ebook on this site, \u201cOne Heartbeat from Hell . . . Plus Eleven Other Compelling Reasons to Become a Christian<\/em>.\u201d)\u00a0 In this life, also, Christians have no excuse to be bored.\u00a0 Got free time?\u00a0 Pray.\u00a0 Praise God.\u00a0 Thank God.\u00a0 Use your theology to spend free minutes to appreciate your Savior.<\/p>\n

        Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cWe cannot expect to attain to comprehensive knowledge even in Heaven . . . we should have to be God ourselves in order to understand God in the depth of His being.\u00a0 God must always remain mysterious to man.\u201d\u00a0 But mysterious<\/em> is in the same sense as the mysteries revealed to us by Paul and the other apostles in the New Testament \u2013 mysteries revealed at the proper time are mysteries no longer.\u00a0 Through eternity, mysteries will certainly be unfolded, but since the knowledge of God is inexhaustible, we will never lose the joy of anticipation.<\/p>\n

        So what is faith<\/em>?\u00a0 We can trust God explicitly and implicitly, because what we don\u2019t understand yet is built on an ever growing and solid foundation.\u00a0 Amazingly, God trusts His children.\u00a0 Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cMan was to be prophet, priest, and king under God in this created world . . . As a prophet man was to interpret the world, as a priest he was to dedicate this world to God, and as a king he was to rule over it for God.\u00a0 In opposition to this all non-Christian theories hold that the vicissitudes of man and the universe about him are only accidentally and incidentally related to one another.\u201d<\/p>\n

        The unbeliever thus makes man too small.\u00a0 God\u2019s children, in the ages to come, will have such responsibilities restored.\u00a0 Unbelievers want to rule now, despite \u2013 in their worldview \u2013 being mere clumps of molecules embedded within a chaotic universe.\u00a0 And they want to rule without any God telling them what to do.\u00a0 Man\u2019s fall was an attempt to redefine his life and his future apart from God.\u00a0 Bad move.\u00a0 Death entered the world and human lifespans are too short, even if man was smart enough to overcome the impossible interstellar distances that keep him from taking over this galaxy, not to mention the entire universe, Star Trek fantasies notwithstanding.\u00a0 Worldly man lives and dies too quickly for such distances, though, and only God has the technology to resurrect man and enable him with God-given technology (power) to inherit God\u2019s creation.<\/p>\n

        Van Til sees the question of knowledge as \u201can ethical question at the root.\u201d\u00a0 Factually correct knowledge about God is not the same, Biblically and in reality, as knowing and loving God.\u00a0 Multitudes of false converts populate the churches who possess some true doctrinal knowledge, but whose assent to doctrine does not produce works, as described in James 2:14.\u00a0 Knowledge of God that does not transform does not save.\u00a0 An evangelical or fundamentalist churchgoer may know much about Scripture, but in his rebellion knows nothing at all of spiritual value . . . his knowledge just puffs him up.<\/p>\n

        Where do you start<\/em> in politics?\u00a0 Start with God, the Bible, and man.\u00a0 The Scriptural arc of history includes a certain prophetic future.\u00a0 Evangelicals today are obsessed with politics, but apathetic to the Great Commission.\u00a0 Should Christians in America vote and vote responsibly?\u00a0 Of course.\u00a0 Might a Christian run for political office?\u00a0 Sure, if that\u2019s God\u2019s will for his life.\u00a0 If it is God\u2019s will, though, he won\u2019t neglect personal evangelism and discipleship, and he will maintain a Biblical perspective on his work . . . for example, tax policy and taxation rates are important enough to get right, so get it right.\u00a0 But it\u2019s the lost world\u2019s obsession that political activism will save the nations and create a godless utopia.\u00a0 Hey, Christian, don\u2019t play the antichrist\u2019s game.\u00a0 That\u2019s where the political efforts of man will climax.<\/p>\n

        Whether in politics or in business or in family life or whatever, what are your grounds for making decisions?\u00a0 Secular philosophers presume that man can acquire knowledge autonomously, without any reference to God who is the source of all knowledge.\u00a0 A common secular approach is to \u201cgo to as many as possible of those reputed to have knowledge.\u201d\u00a0 University professors enjoy the conceit of seeing themselves as ultimate sources.\u00a0 But worldview matters.\u00a0 If we got here by evolution, your ethics will be different than if we are accountable to God.<\/p>\n

        Van Til notes that Eve went to as many as possible <\/em>of those who were reputed to have knowledge.\u00a0 In her mind, apparently, God and Satan both had a reputation for knowing stuff.\u00a0 Eve had to weigh the reputations.\u00a0 She put herself in the Judge\u2019s seat, which belongs only to God, expressed through His word.\u00a0 Eve judged poorly and \u2018whipped\u2019 her husband into going with the flow.\u00a0 Her epistemological choice was entwined with ethics and we live with the consequences.<\/p>\n

        Here\u2019s another reason Van Til offers to bolster our confidence that we must always start with a God-centered view of life . . . Anything we know <\/em>about God should and can be objective.\u00a0 God certainly knows himself and every conceivable detail of His creation.\u00a0 Our existence within the creation derives from God, along with any meaning and hope in life.\u00a0 \u201cWe are fully interpreted before we come into existence.\u00a0 God knows us before and behind:\u00a0 He knows the thoughts of our hearts.\u201d<\/p>\n

        Have you ever considered that God doesn\u2019t just see <\/em>you from in front or behind like others see you.\u00a0 He sees you from above and from beneath and from within.\u00a0 His omnipresence gives Him a perspective from any and all vantage points.\u00a0 Yet He builds a road from Himself to us, as Van Til points out, via Scripture and the indwelling Holy Spirit (for believers).\u00a0 That road, like any road, goes both ways.\u00a0 We can find God by the road He built and thereby find objective knowledge of Him and His will, enjoying true although not exhaustive knowledge of reality.<\/p>\n

        Our knowledge is not exhaustive, of course, because of our finiteness, but what we do know can be TRUE.\u00a0 Postmodernists and subjectivists deny this, of course.\u00a0 They\u2019re wrong \u2013 willfully out of touch with reality.\u00a0 Evangelical small group studies that simply poll their members for feelings or opinions without searching for definite true <\/em>answers from God\u2019s word insult God and destroy each other.<\/p>\n

        Can\u2019t unbelievers be objective about the big issues?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 In standing on a God-denying worldview they deny reality.\u00a0 What can they say that is true <\/em>about ethics or purpose or marriage or the nature of man?\u00a0 Regardless of claims to objectivity, fervency in support of error is willfully wrong . . . sinful.\u00a0 What should they do about it?\u00a0 Deal with it \u2013 repent.\u00a0 The Christian must be compassionate and gracious in his witness, while being bold and direct.\u00a0 The stakes are too huge to equivocate.\u00a0 If you have a relative or a friend or a neighbor in denial (Who doesn\u2019t?), they will be wrong about life\u2019s purpose, wrong about ethics, wrong about WHO holds their atoms together, wrong enough to be one heartbeat from Hell.\u00a0 Help them out!<\/p>\n

        Help him or her out even if he denies all reality.\u00a0 Van Til\u2019s expositions on apologetics depend on the Biblical truth that the natural man knows he is a creature of God and responsible to Him, even if he vocally denies it.<\/p>\n

        Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cA man may have internal cancer.\u00a0 Yet it may be the one point he will not have one speak in his presence.\u00a0 He will grant that he is not feeling well.\u00a0 He will accept any sort of medication so long as it does not pretend to be given in answer to a cancer diagnosis.\u00a0 Will a good doctor cater to him on this matter?\u00a0 He will not . . . So it is with the sinner . . .\u201d<\/p>\n

        You, Christian, have the responsibility to bring \u201cflame-throwers to the very presupposition of the natural man\u2019s ideas with respect to himself.\u201d\u00a0 Use the law to get to the conscience that you know is there,<\/em> because he, too, is made in the image of God.\u00a0 The natural man \u201cis so much in contact with the truth that much of his energy is spent in the vain attempt to hide this fact from himself.\u201d\u00a0 How do you do this in practice, on the street, or with your lost grandma in your living room?\u00a0 See my Evangelism essays or my free ebook on methods.<\/p>\n

        In brief, though, some methods are more powerful than others.\u00a0 It\u2019s generally fruitless in an initial \u2013 and possibly only \u2013 encounter with a skeptic to argue historical issues regarding the Resurrection or the consistency of the New Testament manuscripts.\u00a0 The power issues are those at the foundation of the skeptic\u2019s worldview . . . rationality, morality, hope, love, meaning . . . namely, all the \u2018big stuff\u2019 of life that goes beyond mere molecules in motion.\u00a0 The foundational issues are those embedded in God\u2019s character and reflected in His image-bearers.<\/p>\n

        Only because God is rational and therefore not constrained by brain chemistry, is it possible for us to be rational, not merely chemical automatons.\u00a0 Love, hope, and meaning are issues that God wired into us.\u00a0 The atheistic worldview has no room for any of life\u2019s real issues.\u00a0 Morality is entwined with justice and with judgment, and God\u2019s laws make perfect sense to every man\u2019s conscience.<\/p>\n

        If the unbeliver is a Muslim or a Roman Catholic, etc., the principles are the same.\u00a0 The natural man\u2019s conscience is convicted by the Biblical laws and the Gospel is the only sensible remedy.<\/p>\n

        Presuppositional apologetics, then, is a two-step approach.\u00a0 First, confront the unbeliever\u2019s position to show that it cannot be lived or thought coherently.\u00a0 Second, help the unbeliever understand the Biblical worldview as the only possibility for this life and for eternity.\u00a0 The Gospel flows directly from step two.<\/p>\n

        Van Til quotes A. E. Taylor, a professor and philosopher of a century ago, on the observation that skeptics who exalt science as the pinnacle of all truth, stand on no foundation.\u00a0 All science is built on the presupposition of the \u2018uniformity of nature.\u2019\u00a0 Yet, \u201cNo one could possibly prove its truth to an opponent who seriously disputed it.\u00a0 For all attempts to produce \u2018evidence\u2019 for the \u2018uniformity of nature\u2019 themselves presuppose the very principle they are intended to prove.\u201d<\/p>\n

        You see, every experiment in physics, chemistry, or biology is done at a particular point in space-time.\u00a0 But results are published as if they apply throughout space-time.\u00a0 Just a moment after any experiment is done, the Earth has rotated to a different orientation, and has moved through space along with the rest of the solar system, into a somewhat different part of the galaxy.\u00a0 The galaxy also moves within the universe, and the expansion of the universe presents a somewhat different universe as our environment changes moment by moment.<\/p>\n

        But it\u2019s reasonable, <\/em>you say, to assume uniformity.\u00a0 After all, how can we make any progress of any kind if we don\u2019t?\u00a0 Right.\u00a0 We assume it.\u00a0 We presuppose it.\u00a0 We presuppose that the laws of physics don\u2019t change moment by moment and that it doesn\u2019t matter much whether we measure the charge of the electron at 10 am or 4:23 pm.<\/p>\n

        As Christians we presuppose God who established consistent laws and made science possible so that man can exercise dominion, whether we do it well or poorly, in using our free will because we are not automatons, but in that respect share God\u2019s character of choice-making.<\/p>\n

        The bottom line point is that everyone <\/em>lives and dies with presuppositions.\u00a0 Pick the right ones and reality makes sense.\u00a0 You can\u2019t prove the existence of God when you start with unbelieving presuppositions.\u00a0 But atheistic \/ materialistic presuppositions do not allow for rationality or logic, so you can\u2019t even have a conversation.\u00a0 If you start with the presupposition of God as revealed in Scripture, however, everything makes wonderful sense.<\/p>\n

        Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cOne cannot prove the usefulness of the light of the sun for the purposes of seeing by turning to the darkness of a cave.\u00a0 The darkness of the cave must itself be lit up by the shining of the sun.\u00a0 When the cave is thus lit up, each of the objects that are in it \u2018proves\u2019 the existence and character of the sun by receiving their light and intelligibility from it.\u201d<\/p>\n

        And so God illumines reality . . . all of creation and all of the richness and complexity of human existence.\u00a0 Once you\u2019ve established in the heart and mind of the unbeliever the awesome distinction between God\u2019s worldview and the paltry alternatives, then by all means, if helpful, move on to specific arguments about historicity, flood geology, etc.<\/p>\n

        I like this assessment by Van Til:\u00a0 \u201cModern philosophy in practically all of its schools admits that all its speculations end in mystery . . . It admits that ultimate reality is unknowable to man . . . (everything is) necessarily relative to the mind of man.\u201d\u00a0 How can it be otherwise for the natural man?\u00a0 If man is merely an accidental product of naturalistic forces within <\/em>the universe, what are man\u2019s hopes and dreams and intents, other than the vagaries of brain chemistry?\u00a0 The natural man makes a blind leap of faith to assume that truth <\/em>is something meaningful and that man, on his own, can determine such truth.<\/p>\n

        Van Til goes on to note that modern theology goes hand in hand with modern philosophy, in which the Bible cannot be trusted as an authoritative source and so we can reinvent God to conform to our feelings of what He should be, so that He doesn\u2019t interfere with the way we want to do things.\u00a0 Sins become mistakes, worship becomes a rock concert, and salvation is about charitable work in this life . . . and, by the way, don\u2019t worry about the after-life; if it\u2019s there, everyone goes to the heaven of your imagination.<\/p>\n

        Now, here\u2019s an issue that is a bit subtle, so I\u2019ll try to make it simple enough so that I can understand it.\u00a0 Van Til insists that every man since Adam has been both utterly irrationalistic and utterly rationalistic.\u00a0 How can that be?<\/p>\n

        When Adam refused to take God\u2019s prediction that bad consequences would follow disobedience, Adam irrationally assumed that God didn\u2019t know what He was talking about and the universe simply might not be like that.\u00a0 At the same time, Adam decided that he, Adam, could be certain enough of his own conclusion to bet his life on it.\u00a0 That\u2019s rationalism \u2013 man deciding autonomously what truth is.\u00a0 Rationalism <\/em>is the foundation stone for atheists, who insist that their reason and logic transcends brain chemistry, while at the same time insisting that there is nothing between their ears but brain chemistry.\u00a0 Hey, that\u2019s irrational!<\/em><\/p>\n

        And so every man and woman since Adam sins, going our own way, imagining that sin has no evil consequences, whether selfishness or substance abuse or fornication or greed, despite the clarity of God\u2019s word and despite enormous evidence all around us, including our own experiences.\u00a0 At the same time, man continually decides that he, himself, can make the rules for the day on his own authority.\u00a0 This all is true both for unbelievers and for believers who fall or leap into sin.<\/p>\n

        I\u2019ll end my review here.\u00a0 Bottom line:\u00a0 It\u2019s a simple, old-fashioned Biblical principle . . . Build your life on God\u2019s word in very practical ways.\u00a0 Start with a God\u2019s-eye view of marriage, child-rearing, business, discipleship, evangelism, science, engineering, law, medicine . . . everything.\u00a0 Be alert to discern the difference between worldly methods and philosophies which fight against Biblical counsel, no matter how plausible they seem.\u00a0 This is not an easy thing to do!\u00a0 It\u2019s a life-long quest, because we are immersed in this deceptive world.\u00a0 You\u2019ve got to get into your Bible and live there at least a little each day.\u00a0 And then live the day with God\u2019s precepts in mind.<\/em>\u00a0 Memorize Scripture.\u00a0 Think about it.\u00a0 Discuss it.\u00a0 Read and analyze good books by good authors to get insights that God has given them.<\/p>\n

        That\u2019s why I\u2019ve enjoyed reading Van Til.\u00a0 I don\u2019t recommend this particular book, unless you\u2019re an apologetics glutton like me.\u00a0 Yet despite his flaws (TULIP), he had some real insights.\u00a0 I hope I\u2019ve succeeded in sharing some of those for your edification.\u00a0 Let me know.<\/p>\n

          \n
        • drdave@truthreallymatters.com<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          Part 1:\u00a0 Attitude Matters Does it matter what \u2018philosophical approach\u2019 you bring to personal (\u20181-2-1\u2019 or \u2018121\u2019) evangelism?\u00a0 Does it matter what your attitude is?\u00a0 Well, certainly!\u00a0 Since the Scriptural pattern is evident, we should follow the Lord Jesus who, when he taught, provoked a peculiar response . . . \u201cthe people were astonished at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":30,"menu_order":269,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2885","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2885","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2885"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2885\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3859,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2885\/revisions\/3859"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/30"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}