Introduction

The notion of "a point of contact" in apologetics is something that I have only found elaborated in the work of C. Van Til. It may be present in other writers and I have simply missed it. But I have only encountered in Van Til. "The Point of Contact in Christian Apologetics" is the title of today's message and this is actually a very important concept that should be given more attention by apologists than is given at present. My outline is determined by three questions.

1) What is the point of contact in Christian Apologetics? 2) What misunderstanding occurs regarding the point of contact in Christian Apologetics? 3) How should we apply the point of contact in Christian Apologetics?

1A. What is the point of contact in Christian Apologetics?

Let's begin to answer this question by discussing what a point of contact is in general and how this concept is being used in the context of apologetics. In general, a point of contact is "something that two opponents have in common and which, as such, is a point that one person can use to make contact with the other person and build toward greater agreement" (Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, hereafter cited as VTA, 105 fn. 49). It refers to some common understanding that opens a door to resolution of some area of significant disagreement. In any context of conflict and conflict management, we have to seek some "meeting of the minds" in order to forge ahead to resolution in some compromise that leads to a "win-win" situation. We seek meaningful communication (common/communal exchange). Of course, in apologetics we are not simply trying to bring peace and harmony (community). We are trying to honor Christ in spreading His word for the salvation of sinners. Peace and harmony between sinners is a result though not the primary goal (those brought to Christ are brought together in one body, 1 Cor. 12:13).

However, as we noted last week, the unbeliever is engulfed in darkness, folly, ignorance, and vain reasoning. (Col. 1:21, enemies in mind; Eph. 4:17-19, thinking that is futile and darkened in understanding; Matt. 7:24-27, the foundation for all that they know is sinking sand; therefore, they know nothing in the rich biblical sense of knowing). As Van Til puts it, the natural man "knows nothing at all as he ought" (VTA, 726).

In this context, the question becomes acute: what is the point of contact in Christian apologetics? It becomes acute because it seems impossible to have a point of contact between the Christian mind devoted to Christ and the mind that is hostile to Christ (Col. 1:21) and darkened in understanding (Eph. 4:18). How can there be any meeting of such minds? "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires" (Rom. 8:5). The one mindset is death and the other is life and peace (Rom. 8:6). Hostility rules the attitude of the unbeliever toward the things of God. This is so deep that the natural man cannot submit himself to the authority of God expressed in His law (Rom. 8:7)! It is the blackest picture that can be painted of man in the fall. Fallen man's mindset is one of hostility and inability toward God, toward God's law, His authority, and thus His word in the Scriptures.

Passage after passage in this regard reveals the deep gulf that exists between the Christian and the non-Christian. It is a gulf that is impossible to cross except for the power of God's saving grace (underlying the question of the point of contact between believer/unbeliever is the question of the point of contact between God and the unbeliever; i.e., how does God contact fallen man?). This being the case, we cannot help but wonder if there can be any point of contact in apologetics at all since what we preach is God's authority in Scripture, the very thing the natural man opposes with a vengeance. Claiming independence is the opposite of submission to authority (where man is committed to asserted autonomy, there can be no commitment to God, cf. the point of contact disappears if man is autonomous, Christian Apologetics, Van Til, 54, hereafter, CA).

But we can be affirmative here and state that there is a point of contact. So what then is it? Following Calvin, Van Til understood the point of contact between believer and unbeliever to be the sense of deity that unbelievers have but seek to deny (CA, 57-58). By this sense of deity (sensus divinitatus in Latin) is meant the biblical fact that in all his ignorance, fallen man does know God but in a peculiar way. He knows God in denial. He not only suppresses the truth (Rom. 1:18) but he suppresses the truth that he knows. He knows God in the facts of creation for in the creation God makes Himself known to man with such clarity and plainness that fallen man actually knows and understands (Rom. 1:19-21). As Warfield put it echoing Calvin, "The conviction of the existence of God bears the marks of an intuitive truth in so far as it is the universal and unavoidable belief of men, and is given in the very same act with the idea of self, which is known at once as dependent and responsible and this implies one on whom it depends and to whom it is responsible" (Warfield, Studies in Theology, 110).

But his response with regard to what he knows is suppression in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), dishonor to God, un-thankfulness, and elevation of the creature over the Creator (Rom. 1:19, 21-23). This is "knowing in tension" (knowing but not knowing or knowing in denial and suppression of what is in fact known) .

Psalm 19, with other passages like Psalm 104, confirms the fact that all people know God through the witness He gives of Himself in the created order. The declaration of His glory by means of the heavens, the firmament, and the sun gives knowledge of God. Everyone hears God's voice no matter what language they speak. Understanding of God is experienced by all upon whom the sun radiates its heat (Ps. 19:1-6). Psalm 104 shows that it is not just the heavens and the sun that display God's glory and wisdom but every aspect of creation from sky to earth, mountain to valley, and plant to animal. Thus, the Psalmist says, "How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you made them all" (v. 24) and "May the glory of the Lord endure forever; may the Lord rejoice in all his works" (v. 31). Note the connection between God's works, wisdom, and glory.

As rational creatures all people know their Creator but suppress the truth they know in unrighteousness. The illustration of the gambler may help explain the dynamic that is at work here. A loser will deny that he is losing (cf. he only reports the "wins" he has had and little or nothing of the losses). When he has lost everything, he may then say, "I knew all along that I was wrong but kept suppressing the truth in placing one bet after another."

In light of these things, let's return to the point of contact question. Does a place exist where there is a meeting of the minds between the Christian and the non-Christian? Yes, it exists in the fact that both know God. Of course, the dynamic here is the ever-present fact of denial. To be clear that denial may be religious or it may be non-religious. There is common ground but it is very slippery turf. There is a point of contact between believer and unbeliever in knowing God but it is clouded with the ambivalence of denying on one hand what is known on the other.

2A. What misunderstanding occurs regarding the point of contact in Christian Apologetics?

Repeated misunderstanding occurs when reason is made the point of contact as an ultimate standard, authority, or presupposition. This is understandable in that all communication between rational people involves reasoning in accord with the laws of logic to some degree.

Hinted at here is the all too prevalent fact that apologists continually seek to make reason the common ground of agreement from which to work to greater agreement in a normative way.

That is, it is in some way agreed upon at the beginning that human reason is the norm or standard that must determine the matters upon which we disagree (such as the truth of the Bible). That should be avoided.

1B. Why should this be avoided? What is wrong with such appeal (per Van Til)?

a) The apologist is "untrue to his own doctrine of man as the creature of God." If man is a creature then he is not ultimate and human logic is not ultimate.

b) The apologist "defeats his own purpose." It is because people are sinners who have an axe to grind against the truth. They seek to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

And the tool they use to do so is their ability to reason. When this tool is given an unrestricted operator's license it will be used to reject Christianity. It is as simple as saying that when reason is allowed to judge God then it is the standard and God is not the standard so it is logically necessary that God be rejected because He already cannot be.

Therefore, if the apologist grants this assumption, without challenging it, he is being untrue by acknowledging something sinful man does not have. And he defeats himself by giving ground to the assumption of the ultimacy of man, an assumption that entails the impossibility of the God of Scripture.

2B. Consider how this works out in the approach of a well-known philosopher.

I refer to Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher of Christian Reformed background. Out there in the university marketplace of ideas and intense philosophical exchanges, in Plantinga we have a very hard working co-laborer. He is a great defender of the faith pinning atheistic thought to the mat. He does this by exposing the fact that the starting assumption of atheism, most of the time, is a commitment to the proposition that Christianity is false. Thus he repeatedly shows that they beg the question and therefore make an unfounded and illegitimate claim on behalf of atheism. He is a sumo wrestler with unmatched skill among philosophers world wide.

However, Plantinga's goal is not to prove the truth of Christianity (that need not and cannot be done according to Plantinga). He is defending belief in Christianity by exposing the unreasonable claims made by atheists. But note the following carefully. In exposing atheism as he does, Plantinga does not challenge the place of reason as the final standard. Just the opposite is the case. Plantinga seeks to defend the rationality of Christianity, to allow Christians to hold their heads high in the public philosophical arena with credibility as rational people. This is his driving concern and it is the way he finds a point of contact with unbelievers.

But as many point out (Helm, Faith and Understanding, 198), this was not Calvin's concern though Plantinga uses principles from Calvin in his model (a model he calls "the Calvin/Aquinas model" proposing to mix oil with water). And biblically it is not our credibility in academia that is important but the Lordship of Christ and the honor of His word. And there are some glaring weaknesses that surface in this connection. Here are some examples.

a) Plantinga is the leader of a movement of "philosophers who believe" (cf. a book by this title edited by Kelly Clark of Calvin College). But what do these philosophers believe given the ultimacy that reason has in their thinking? Adler looks for a future of rational affirmation of belief in God that brings improvements in Christian theology that are in accord with progress in our scientific knowledge (Philosophers, 221; though philosophy will not be likewise impacted). Claiming to avoid dogmatism and skepticism, Penelhum (a Canadian philosopher) is nonetheless closed to beliefs that make us susceptible to ridicule. He refers to such beliefs as a historical fall or physical ascension of Christ: "I cannot bring myself to entertain such claims seriously or, therefore, to adopt any forms of biblical interpretation that would require this. We know too much to continue to encase our Christian teachings in antiquated cosmologies in the way such options require" (235). Yet as an Anglican he is confident in the necessity and efficacy of prayers for the dead (232).

b) Plantinga rejects Dort as dubious containing claims about biblical teaching that is "at

best terse and enigmatic." He says that the Canons of Dort "do not at all obviously represent what John Calvin himself had in mind." The Canons represent but an "internecine quarrel among Calvinists" (a mutually destructive inter-group struggle) and are dubious as a confessional standard (Philosophers, 278, fn5). Not surprisingly, he has what to us must be a very weak view of human depravity, bondage, and sin giving man some measure of autonomy. This autonomy is defined in a way that comports with the opponents of the Canons of Dort (Warranted, 212; apparently that side of the internecine quarrel is not terse, enigmatic, and dubious!).

c) He makes us wonder about his view of inspiration. He claims we cannot hold that belief in the Bible as from the mouth of God is induced by the Holy Spirit (Warranted Christian Belief, 260). [To be sure the Spirit does not go down a list of topics in systematic theology saying these are true but cf. 1 Thess 2:13 with 1:5].

d) He also misses the point that Scripture is self-authenticating. He says it is not that a properly functioning human will see their truth when they grasp them (Warranted, 260-261; the problem here is that Calvin seeks to do justice to the fact that man knows God via Scripture but suppresses what he knows. Such knowledge is for Van Til the point of contact we have with unbelievers.).

For me, Plantinga is a great friend and a true warrior on the battlefront with philosophical atheism but he has taken some serious wounds, perhaps a most significant one is to the eyes so though he fights profoundly well, he does so with pockets of blindness. Or, perhaps the wounds are to the feet that are to be shod with the gospel; he still fights a good cause and though limping he is still agile. (cf. Wolterstorff on being shaped by philosophy, "from the practice and its tradition," Philosophers, 270). Philosophy does shape one's mindset and Plantinga's life work has been on the philosophical battlefield. I am glad he is there and count him a Christian friend but with reservations regarding the point of contact and ultimate authority in human knowledge.

One final thing can be said that balances how we view Plantinga's work. Despite some of the particular criticisms I have mentioned above, there has been a remarkable progression from the 60's to the present as to the Christian nature of Plantinga's work. My assessment is that until his latest work (Warranted Christian Belief, 2000), he has been about the task of defending a very generic and bland theism; he has been defending belief in God in general. He has earned respect among the atheists who have dominated philosophical circles. He has encouraged many Christian thinkers to enter the field of philosophy (He encouraged me personally when I met him at a seminar put on by the philosophy faculty of Wayne State University when I was teaching logic there). But in his recent work on warranted Christian belief, he lays out a fairly clear picture of the Christian worldview. This means that philosophers around the world will be forced to interact with the Christian system of thought in order to stay current with respect to developments in epistemology (the nature and limits of human knowledge). Epistemology is Plantinga's expertise. Of course, if this interaction gives license to human autonomy (and presently that is the status quo) then the Christian system will be run through the autonomy meat grinder. And what results is that the steak and prime rib of Christianity will reduced to some kind of autonomous hamburger. Our duty is to challenge autonomy calling for repentance. Where that is not done we can still hope that God will be merciful to philosopher/sinners and to sinners in general as the gospel is published in this somewhat checkered way by Plantinga.

3A. How should we apply the point of contact in Christian Apologetics?

It is not by simply shouting at unbelievers and calling them liars and dirty rotten sinners. We do not coldly say to them, "you know that I am right and you are wrong but you just won't admit it." Still, that is almost what we are to do.

A sketch of principles

1) We appeal to what we know they know. We are to do so humbly and wisely. We know what they in fact know but will not admit. Pointedly, we appeal to the conscience of the covenant breaker. But we do so guardedly because the "will not admit" part of the equation is held tenaciously. And we know that what we know is ours by undeserved grace. We only know because of God's gracious revelation so we must proceed humbly. We do so with meekness and respect before God and for them (1 Pet. 3:15f.).

2) We make this appeal to the conscience according to their questions, however deceptive they may ultimately be. We must recognize that the assertion of autonomy is sometimes back end loaded.

3) We engage their particular arguments following the lines of argument carefully and patiently. It is no surprise that they argue and do so relentlessly. Why don't we then give up on arguing and simply leave them to God? We engage because God commands it. We are to be always preparing ourselves to give answers (1 Pet. 3:15). We commanded to bring all thoughts captive to Christ by exposing them in their folly, by exposing the folly of the arguments (2 Cor. 10:4-5). That this applies to us as a duty is given in the classic Peter passage along with the indication from Philippians 1 that we all share in Paul's work of defending and confirming and are to do so by speaking the word courageously (1:7, 14).

4) Exposing the arguer means we not only expose the argumentative failure but we look behind it at the indications of the claim of human autonomy that is unwarranted but asserted. We must be ever on the look out for this fundamental taproot. Finding this foundation, we call for a turning away from self-sufficiency, the core of disobedience to God. We call to Christ who offers forgiveness to prodigals who return to the Father saying, "I am not worthy" (cf. VTA, 139fn.134). Picture a sheet placed over a chair. The chair represents the truth they know but seek to cover up. The sheet is the assertion of autonomy. We are to peel back the sheet by exposing the bottom line assertion and doing that we bring them face to face with the God they know but deny. When we finally get there is may be like trying to pull a cat out of a bath tub into which it has fallen; it may scratch its rescuer relentlessly not stopping until it lands safely on solid ground. Some people may so respond to our attempts to win them for Christ. This shows again how dependent we are on the work of Christ in the great saving process.

5) Therefore we need a healthy balance of graces. This all must be done by praying for and seizing God's open door, by withdrawal from pig and dog like responses (Col. 4:1-6; Matt. 7:6). Yet we are to engage unbelievers with a sensitivity to the need of the moment (Eph. 4:29-32) and with Christian graces (i.e., humble, meek, gentle, and patient; cf. Edwards on Charity and its Fruits).

Benediction

May the Lord richly bless you in your journey. May He give you open doors for the defense and proclamation of the apostolic gospel. May he give you the strength and wisdom needed to walk through open doors to His honor and glory.

For if we first allow the legitimacy of the natural man’s assumption of himself as the ultimate reference point in interpretation in any dimension we cannot deny his right to interpret Christianity itself in naturalistic terms.

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 the one point that cannot bear mentioning in his presence. A man may have internal cancer. Yet it may be the one point he will not have one speak of in his presence. He will grant that he is not feeling well. He will accept any sort of medication so long as it does not pretend to be given in answer to a cancer diagnosis. Will a good doctor cater to him on this matter? Certainly not. He will tell his patient that he has promise of life, but promise of life on one condition, that is, of an immediate internal operation. So it is with the sinner. He is alive but alive as a covenant-breaker. But his own interpretative activity with respect to all things proceeds on the assumption that such is not the case. Romanism and evangelicalism, by failing to appeal exclusively to that which is within man but is also suppressed by every man, virtually allow the legitimacy of the natural man’s view of himself. They do not seek to explode the last stronghold to which the natural man always flees and where he always makes his final stand. They cut off the weeds at the surface but do not dig up the roots of these weeds, for fear that crops will not grow.

The truly biblical view, on the other hand, applies atomic power and flame-throwers to the very presupposition of the natural man’s ideas with respect to himself. It does not fear to lose a point of contact by uprooting the weeds rather than by cutting them off at the very surface. It is assured of a point of contact in the fact that every man is made in the image of God and has impressed upon him the law of God. In that fact alone he may rest secure with respect to the point of contact problem. For that fact makes men always accessible to God. That fact assures us that every man, to be a man at all, must already be in contact with the truth. He is so much in contact with the truth that much of his energy is spent in the vain effort to hide this fact from himself. His efforts to hide this fact from himself are bound to be self-frustrative.

Only by thus finding the point of contact in man’s sense of deity that lies underneath his own conception of self-consciousness as ultimate can we be both true to Scripture and effective in reasoning with the natural man.

An example of what we should tell inquirers

"…tell his inquirer what the gospel of the Scripture really is and how men, whether scientists or not, if they repent from their sin of seeking to repress the truth within and about them, may be saved" (Van Til in a book review, Westminster Theological Journal, May, 1970).