Apologetics and Education

A comparison between the presuppositional and the classical method of apologetics
By Sacha Walicord


The Importance of Education
If there is one thing that all political systems in history have in common, it is an understanding of the importance of education. Only in the very least of these cases, this very education is to be understood in the sense an individual gaining knowledge for his own good or for the greater good of society. Rather, education has been seen as the best tool for securing the establishment and future of a certain regime or mindset. Karl Marx saw compulsory government-provided education of the youth as one of the main pillars of his socialist ideas. Adolf Hitler is known to have said in a speech on November 6th 1933, "When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side', "I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community." And on May 1, 1937 he declared, " This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing." Until this day, German authorities, based on Hitler's educational legislation of 1938, harshly prosecute those who don't submit their children to governmental education from age six on. Parents who refuse to do so face extremely high fines, incarceration and even the loss of their beloved children to governmental custody - right in the middle of this new "tolerant Europe". Why is it that each regime that comes into power is so anxious to get education under its control? Why are governments around the world investing billions and billions in education even in times of economic recession? Luke 6:40 says: "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher" Here one finds the key to all the "power-games" about education throughout history. One might say that the battle is not only about education but also about control over the media. Nevertheless, what is media other than public education in the purest sense of the word? Luke describes what every political or ideological propagandist knows. The best way to transform a culture into a certain political or ideological way is to gain control over education. The one who controls education automatically controls the future for coming generations who ideologically "will be like their teacher".

Secular Education vs. Christian Education

Christians often miss that fact and treat education as something "neutral" or as something originally belonging to the government. Real Protestantism throughout history has been known for being biblical and firmly standing on the grounds of sola scriputra. The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 in Chapter 1.2 talks about, "[T]he books of the Old and New Testament..., which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life." No area of human existence is to be excluded from being ruled by Scripture. Accordingly, this also holds true for the field of education. Therefore, there is (sic!) a Christian view of education and when it comes to this view one has to consult the Bible in order to gain a Christian view of the subject of education, or to put it in other words reflecting Luke 6:40, Who shall be the teacher of Christian covenant children? Ideas have consequences and this nowhere has more truth to it than when it comes to theology. The Christian theological system as it is revealed in Scripture is homogenious and organic - a perfect unity. Each single aberration in any part of this unified system of doctrine has consequences in many other parts. This essay seeks to describe such a correlation, namely the one between between one's apologetic system and its respective ramifications on the view of Christian education. It does this in comparing the view of two different apologetic systems: The first one is what is called the presuppositional system of apologetics and the second one is what is called classical apologetics. It will first provide a short introduction to these systems of thought and then take a closer look at the educational ramifications of each system. Ideas have consequences and it is exactly these consequences that this essay wants to point out when it comes to a view of education. Finally there will be a concluding comparison between the two systems.

Introduction to the Two Apologetic Systems

Classical apologetics employs natural theology as its beginning point. Natural theology refers to information about God that is gleaned from nature. This is not to be mixed up with natural (or general) revelation. Sproul points out that while revelation is "something God does", natural theology "is something we acquire. It is the result of either human speculation, viewing nature as a neutral object-in-itself, or of human reception of information given by the creator in and through his creation. It is crucial to understand the difference between the two. While the former is the fact that God has revealed Himself in nature, the second claims to be "fallen man's interpretation of God to him is identical with revelation itself." In other words, proponents of the classical apologetic method believe that fallen man - unreconciled with God - is capable of interpreting God's general revelation in the proper way in order to gain insight about the existence of God. The classical method follows a two-step-approach. In a first step it employs natural theology to first establish general theism as the correct worldview. After (a) God's existence has thus been shown, the classical method moves to a presentation of the historical evidences for the deity of Christ, the trustworthiness of Scripture, et cetera, to show that Christianity is the best version of theism, as opposed to say, Judaism and Islam. The order of the two phases in the classical method is essential and must not be reversed. That is, before one can meaningfully discuss historical evidences one has to have established God's existence because one's worldview is a framework through which miracles, historical facts, and other empirical data are interpreted. As it has been expressed in a major work on classical apologetics, "Miracles cannot prove God. God, as a matter of fact, alone can prove miracles. That is, only on the prior evidence that God exists is a miracle even possible." The presuppositional apologetic method totally agrees to the fact that one first needs to establish the existence of God and has to move on from there. Only the method of how to establish God's existence is different. The presuppositionalist doesn't try to prove the existence of a God (general theism) by inference but rather presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible and the truth of Christianity as the starting point of all apologetics. Rather than arguing from the natural evidences or the traditional philosophical "proofs" or arguments for Christianity, presuppositional apologists employ the transcendental argument to make their case. The transcendental argument affirms that, in order to make sense of the world, it is necessary to postulate the existence of the triune God as revealed in the Bible. Presuppositional apologists argue that passages like Romans 1:18 make it clear that unbelievers will never admit the reality of the living God but rather "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth". Paul's point in Romans 1 is that the unbeliever's rebellion is willful and knowledgeable; he sins against his better knowledge and is thus "without excuse" (vv. 20-21). The mind is depraved through the fall to an extent that it has no inclination to see God - it is in its totality hostile to God and to the truth. Therefore, the believer can pile up as much evidence as he wants, the unbeliever will continue to "suppress the truth by his unrighteousness". Cornelius Van Til repeatedly pointed out that the apologetic discourse with the unbeliever is not about "brute facts" but about the interpretation of these very facts. Facts and interpretation of facts can never be separated. Since God has created all things, all things have to be interpreted according to the will of the creator. Man has to "think God's thoughts after Him" which means "bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." The unbeliever does not understand the facts in the light of the reality of a living God Who has created all things. The unbeliever refuses to "bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." Being a "natural man" [he] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." Only the creator of all things through His special revelation can guide us how to rightly interpret all things. Therefore, man has to "think God's thoughts after Him" - not only in the very field of theology but in all areas of life. The unbeliever desperately tries to find alternative explanations to all things - he interprets nature against the will of God. Van Til wrote that, "The unbeliever who tries to explain the universe as the product of sheer chance is like a man made of water who tries to climb out of the water on a ladder made of water. The unbeliever is prejudiced about everything, like a man with yellow glasses cemented to his face-all is yellow to the jaundiced eye." Paul's letter to the Ephesians describes the unbeliever as "walk[ing] in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God..."

Classical and Presuppositional Apologetics Compared

The conclusion that one has to draw from this is that the main difference between the presuppositional and the classical approach to apologetics is a different understanding of the noetic effects of sin. While classical apologists believe that - although fallen- the unbeliever's mind is still capable of grasping the truth rationally, presuppositionalists would emphatically argue that according to passages like Romans 1:18, Ephesians 4:17-18 et al the consequences of man's total depraviy caused by the fall "reaches deep down into a man's very being, even to his mind, his reasoning process" to a degree that he is unable to understand God's truth.

Practical Implications

When it comes to the practical effects of these different understandings this means that the classical apologist believes in a common neutral ground between the unbeliever and the believer. This neutral ground is an alleged capability of the unbeliever to reason in a rational way. Therefore, the apologist is not afraid to use the unbelievers presuppositions as a starting point for his apologetic endeavor. From there he tries to derive the existence of God by applying rational arguments in order for the unbeliever to understand the existence of God. The presuppositionalist denies this common neutral ground between the believer and the unbeliever. Since he is dealing with a "darkened mind", incapable of using reason in the right way but anxious to "suppress the truth by unrighteousness" there is no common ground to start from. He therefore does not start from the unbeliever's presuppositions, which would mean trying to derive the greater from the lesser but he begins by presupposing the existence of the living God as ultimate truth and derives everything from there. In the manner of Proverbs 1:7 his epistemology doesn't begin with natural theology but with the existence of God and His revelation. Everything else he derives from there. Here the Christian revelation in the Scriptures is the framework through which all experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Various evidences and arguments can be advanced for the truth of Christianity, but these at least implicitly presuppose premises that can be true only if Christianity is true.

Implications on Education

This paper is dealing with the specific implications on education of each of the two schools of apologetics. At first sight one might ask himself if there even is a connection between an apologetic method and education. As shown above the two systems mainly differ on their understanding of the noetic effects of sin. This leads to a different understanding of what is called the starting point of apologetics. While classical apologists believe in a common neutral ground between the believer and the unbeliever, presuppositional apologists stress an antithesis between the two. For reasons of a logical structure I will deal with the presuppositional approach first. Education always involves those who educate and those who are being educated. The subject matter of education is facts, both natural and supernatural. But it is not only the cognitive transfer of facts but also the transfer of their interpretation. As shown above, presuppositionalists deny that there are brute facts but facts are always being interpreted, either according to God's revealed truth ("thinking God's thoughts after Him") by believers or by "suppressing the truth by unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18). Accordingly, it makes all the difference for presupositionalists whether the teacher is a believer or an unbeliever. Therefore Van Til points out: The principles by which believers live are squarely opposed to the principles by which unbelievers live. This is true in the field of education as well as in the church. Accodingly we speak of antitheses in education. These antitheses cover the whole educational field. They cover first the field of educational philosophy. This is of basic significance, but is often overlooked. In the second place these antitheses appear when we consider what is to be taught, i.e., the curriculum. Finally these antitheses appear when we consider the child or the young person to be instructed. Van Til makes it clear that this antithesis is existent in the whole process of education: 1. In the philosophy of education, 2. in the curriculum and 3. in respect to the student. This means that it makes an absolute difference between a Christian providing Christian education and secular education - which sadly sometimes is provided by Christian teachers. Van Til, therefore, remains faithful to his view of the denial of brute facts and in stating the different interpretation of facts by believers and unbelievers. This means nothing less than total denial of non-Christian education for the presuppositionalist apologist. Although Van Til implies the person of the teacher in his first two antitheses (philosophy of education and curriculum), a separate point has to be made about the influence of the teacher not only as a proponent of a certain teaching philosophy or the creator of a curriculum but also as a role model. Luke 6:40 stands a promise but also as a warning, "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher." It shows the tremendous influence a teacher has on his disciple or student. In the worst case, this means that a covenant child, trained and schooled by unbelievers will be like them, not only in its reaoning but also in its conduct. Therefore presuppositionalists and all those who hold their view on the noetic effects of sin, consistently have to refuse education that is non-Christian. For them, their is no neutral philsophy of education and no neutral curriculum. Every thought is to be "taken captive to the obedience of Christ." Since this atnitheses affect all subjects and fields withouth exception, adherents of this approach to education try to publish Christian textbooks to all fields. For the presuppositionalist, proper Christian education can only be provided by Christians who hold a consistently Christian worldview. For him there is no alternative and no other standard than the command of Deuteronomy 6:4-7,

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise."

With all the emphasis on time and on all areas of life in this passage, one indeed can hardly make a serious argument for covenant children spending 15,000 hours in secular public schools or non-Christian private schools during their childhood. Even so-called "Christian schools" can have a non-Christian approach to education.
As R. J. Rushdoony points out, "It is a deadly error on the part of the Christian school to assume that its task is similar to that of the "public" or government schools with bible added to it. There are no common sets of facts that are shared by both Christians and non-Christians. If we reproduce the same facts, we reproduce the same religion of humanism as that of the state schools."
Classical apologetics does not have this radical view of the fall and its noetic effects on the mind of the unbeliever; it naturally allows more latitude when it comes to education. In its view, the unbeliever's mind seems not to be completely incapable of understand God's truth and God's reason. Classical apologists believe that there is "neutral ground" between the believer and the unbeliever and therefore there will be neutral ground when it comes to education as well. In effect, this means that unbelievers theoretically could educate Christians because they still have the ability to reason rightly.
This does not mean that every classical apologist is open to secular or non- Christian education for Christians but since he doen't hold to the absolute antitheses between the mind of the believer and the mind of the unbeliever he consistently will be more sympathetic to non-Christian education. It is exactly at this point when he theologically "collides" with Luke 6:40, that, "[A disciple] when he is fully trained will be like his teacher." The unbeliever's apologetic convictions - if consistently held - lead him to a different view than this promise/warning in the Gospel of Luke. Since he believes in intellectual "neutral ground" for him the passage has to say that "the disciple may but not necessarily has to become like his teacher." He can only hold to the original meaning of the passage if he separates the intellectual capacity of "the teacher" from his influence as a role model and then try to hold to the reduced noetic effects of sin on the mind while holding to total depravity in "the teachers" conduct as a role model. Such a dichotomy would not only be artificial and construed but also contrary to the Scriptures' understanding of "learning" and "teaching" as an organic unity.

Conclusion:

Once again, one can clearly see that "ideas have consequences" - often far more than one wishes. Biblical truth, as an absolute homogeneous system of truth for all areas of life is the ultimate example of this fact. Therefore, one has to think at least twice before he decides to hold a certain doctrine. It might have heavy consequences in areas where one would have never expected it. The educational ramifications of presuppositional apologetics not only seem clearly more desirable and logical when it comes to the education of the covenant children but fit much more harmoniously into the whole system of doctrine as set forth in Holy Scripture. There is no "neutral ground" in this whole universe and therefore certainly not in the field education. There is no such thing as a via media - who is not for Christ, is against Him, and who is not against Him, is for Him.

Bibliography

Bahnsen, L., G., and Greg L. Bahnsen. Always Ready. Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 1996.
Bahnsen, Greg. Pushing the Antithesis. Powder Springs: American Vision, 2007.
Bahnsen, Greg. Van Til's Apologetic. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1998.
Berkhof, Louis and Til, Cornelius Van. Foundations of Christian Education. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1990.
Cowan, Steven B. (Editor) Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Demar, Gary. Thinking Straight in a Crooked World. Powder Springs: American Vision, 2001.
Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994.
Geehan, E. R. (Editor) Jerusalem and Athens. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1980.
Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons (for Faith). Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2006.
Powell, Doug. Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006.
Rushdoony, Rousas. The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum. Vallecito: Ross House Books, 2001.
Rushdoony, Rousas J. The Messianic Character of American Education. Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1963.
Shirer, William. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
Sproul, Charles, Robert et.al. Classical Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Sproul, Charles, Robert. What is Reformed Theology?. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.
Til, Cornelius Van. A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1969.
Til, Cornelius Van. The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: P & R Publishing, 1963
Til, Cornelius Van. Christian Apologetics. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1976.
Shirer, William. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990) 249. The Holy Bible - English Standard Version Sproul, R.C. What Is Reformed Theology?. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005) 13. Ibid.
Til, Cornelius. A Christian Theory of Knowledge:. (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1961) 301. Van Til adheres to the presuppositional method and strongly opposes the classical method for its lack of understanding the noetic effects of sin (the depravity of man's intellect) and for its understatement of the unbeliever's enmity against God.

Not specifically Christian

This doesn't mean Christian theism but a theism in general because the bible is not involved at this point since this approach starts off from "natural theology" and not from Scripture.

Cowan, Steven B. Five Views on Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 15. Ibid., 16.
Sproul, Charles, Robert et.al. Classical Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 146 in Cowan, Steven B. (Editor) Five Views on Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).
The three most prominent arguments for the existence of God are the ontological, cosmological and teleological argument.
Powell, Doug. Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics. (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006) 360.
Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999) 729.
Bahnsen, L., G., and Greg L. Bahnsen. Always Ready. (Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 1996) 38.
Bahnsen, Greg. Van Til's Apologetic. (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1998) 38.
2 Cor. 10:5 American Standard Version
2 Cor. 10:5 American Standard Version
1 Cor. 2:14
Johannes Kepler
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963), 74.
Eph. 4:17-18
Bahnsen, Greg. Pushing the Antithesis. (City: American Vision, 2007) 28. Argumentum minorem ad maiorem
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;"
Argumentum maiorem ad minorem
Cowan, Steven B. Five Views on Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 19. Berkhof, Louis and Til, Cornelius Van. Foundations of Christian Education. (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1990) 3.
Some examples are: Nickel, James. Mathematics - Is God Silent?. City: Ross House Books, 2001. Jr., R.. Biblical Economics. City: Draught Horse Press, 2002. North, Gary. Honest Money. City: Christian Liberty Press, 1986. Ryken, Philip. Art for God's Sake. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2006. Adams, Jay. Competent to Counsel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1986. Titus, Herbert. God, Man, and Law. Oak Brook: Institute in Basic Life Principles, 1994.
"sit in your house", "walk by the way", "lie down", "rise" Rushdoony, Rousas. The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum. (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 2001) 149.