✧ I won’t really write descriptions for these, but see original post tags for explanation/commentary on the song snippet ✧

Take #2 on Post-Modernism

Okay, photo kinda unrelated but healthy reminder.

Wowza, what are these regular updates on this tumblr huh?

Anyway, today was Day 1 of YF camp, and as usual our camp speaker Greg already put out a few absolute bangers (apart from endorsing Mr Shai Linne ofc).

I find it interesting that as of late, more and more church messages and sermons have been centered around the danger of subjective truth. I remember my Church Pastor addressing it a while back, and even before him, I can vividly recall Paul Washer talking about it as well. Effectively, whether the rebuttal arises from the post-modernist's refusal to accept the presence of irrefutable absolute truth, or from the unwillingness to submit to an ultimate authority which governs their decision-making, their worldview crumbles into irrationality and darkness (Wow harsh words but I'm sure Paul and the other apostles were as, if not more harsh).

Anyway, the reason why I am writing this post as I take 176 to West Coast Park is because of something Greg spoke about on Day 1 of YF Camp. In addressing the need to discern the truth, alongside the need to recognize that there is 1 truth, Greg cut to the heart of a topic I have been getting into as of late , namely, presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositional apologetics (or presupp, for the cool kids), is an apologetic method coined by one Cornelius Van Til. Such an apologetic originated from Van Til's rejection of the other methods of defending the faith that he was presented with, (the evidentialist argument, creator-creation argument etc), a rejection arising from the notion that such apologetic placed the unbeliever as the "Judge", with "God" being put on trial.

In his rejection of said methods, Van Til acknowledged the supremacy of the Word of the immutable almighty God, the Bible, as the absolute standard from which any value judgement or decision must be made. Moreover, another piece of justification for the presuppositional method of defending the faith, one I find very compelling, was Van Til's reference to Romans 1:18. If the unbeliever, is truly as the Bible says, "[suppressing] the truth in unrighteousness", then this means that they already know the truth of Scripture. 

In effect, no men or women who denies the truth is without excuse, for all of nature screams the Glory of God, and attests to the existence of an immutable and loving creator. In this light, the apologist should not put the Sovereign God on 'trial', allowing the unbeliever to decide if the Father is 'real or not'. 

Rather, the apologist should presuppose (hence the name hehe) the truth of the Bible, and seek to prove the existence and legitimacy of the Father and Christ through the daily assumptions the unbeliever makes about reality, since they know God exists, and are rejecting it in unrighteousness. Another thing I appreciate about this apologetic method is its emphasis on the moving power of the Holy Spirit. In true Ephesians 2:8-9 fashion, presupp highlights that only by the grace of God can men be saved, and only the Spirit can sanctify a depraved people.

Romans 1:18 Unbelief and Its Consequences

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness

Alright, now that I've laid out the groundwork of Presuppositional Apologetics, I want to link it back to Greg's talk today. Throughout his talk, I couldn't help but link it back to the unconscious, inconspicuous post-modernism that has seemingly permeated the secular mindset on all levels.

Oh and before I forget, bruh Proverbs 9:10

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Something key about presuppositional apologetics is its emphasis on tracing an observation to its root. In other words, it rationalizes every occurrence observable to scripture. To give an example, Van Til would argue that secular morality, logic and axiomatic theory, and an innate sense of justice, are all proof of a transcendent omniscient omnipotent God. In the same strand, presupp forces the apologist to begin their apologetic from the position of every word of the Bible being true. So should the unbeliever question whether they can prove the Bible is real, the response is "Yes I can. The Bible tells me so."

While I can understand the apprehension one might have adopting such an apologetic method, the more you think about it the more it makes sense.

In his book, "Defense of the Faith", Van Til begins by espousing on Ultimate Authority. Whether one is a Christian, an Atheist, a Materialist, a Monotheist, Polytheist, Pantheist, or any other belief system, they unconsciously submit to an ultimate authority. Most of the time such an authority is logic and sense perception, though in some cases it can extend to axioms and morality.

Regardless, the presuppositional apologist takes these assumptions, and points out how without God, they cannot make sense. For the sake of clarification, I will explicate on Morality, especially in the post-modern worldview.

For a post-modern Atheist, they would argue morality is subjective. Should a society or culture advance past a certain point, morality can fluctuate and change with it. In other words, any feelings of injustice exist because of this unspoken shared moral code that everyone agrees on.

The issue here is twofold.

Firstly, for an atheist, morality should not matter. If men really is borne not in the image of an immutable God, but is just a bunch of chemicals, or on a more macro-level, quarks bouncing off each other, then there is no basis for morality. Really, men is just a bunch of chemicals acting a certain way at a certain temperature. In that case, why should one dictate a certain moral action? What differentiates men from a bottle of coca cola that is shaken and opened, with fizz leaking out. If men has no intrinsic value, then why is there even a debate about morality? Arbitrary concepts like right and wrong, which a debate attempts to determine, do not exist if the two debaters are composed of noises concocted by atoms in motion. Some atheists would argue that morality arises from a need for mankind’s self-preservation. Here, the question becomes one of degree. Where does such a rule extend to. If morality is innately understood by every human, yet is entirely subjective, then does this mean that because my morality states that I will kill anyone with squeaky shoes, a squeak from your Converse Sneakers warrants your death?  Evidently that is not how morality works. Morality is not simply composed of two groups of people shouting at each other, with the louder group determining the morality of the system. If men has an awareness that things like murder, sin, and adultery are wrong, but this is not to arise from the presence of a Just God who has placed in every men and women’s heart a notion of his justice, then where does this morality extend to? Even if I can agree that within my family, we share a sense of morality, why should this ethical code extend to those outside my direct sphere of influence? If someone’s long-term longevity is of no direct interest to me, why is it wrong to rob your neighbor? In the same vein, why is it wrong to wage war on other nations should their interests not at all align with mine?  Here, the atheist’s argument for having a coherent moral system completely falls apart. This is what Van Til calls the futility of the non-Christian worldview. In the futility of the Atheistic Worldview, we observe the “impossibility of the contrary”, where in the absence of any other explanation for morality, the Christian worldview can account for one.  Similarly, for the secular Post-Modernist, they are quick to state that while something might be true for them, it does not have to be true for others. In short, subjective truth. This is dangerous for many reasons, but on the logical front, it is self-contradicting. Many Post-Modernists will even admit that they do not know what is ‘true’ for sure. All one has to do to refute the post-modernist is ask them if they know THAT to be true. If the post-modernist cannot claim to know anything to be true, their argument is incoherent and any knowledge claims are inconsistent with their worldview, in which case their worldview likewise crumbles into absurdity. To quote the man, Mr Paul Washer, in his indictment of the post-modern mindset, “either I am right and you are wrong, or you are right and I am wrong, or we are both wrong, but we CANNOT both be right!”

Hopefully through this very brief example, it has become clear (to at least some degree) how the presuppositionalist is to defend the faith. In having a consistent and coherent epistemology, the apologist is to hold up the ultimate authority of the Bible above all other things. Only through this can a logical argument emerge. Yet, and this remains key, regardless of the apologetic one employs to explain the faith, I pray that the a love for the unbeliever, a love that mimics the love of Christ, is what motivates our pleading with them. The apologist is to plead with the unbeliever as one pleads with blinded people in a burning building. While I often times find myself trading blows with others when talking about the faith, especially in using presupp, we have to remember above all, to hold fast to the truth of the gospel, that God became man, and bore the wrath of all who believe, such that they might in grace, find eternal salvation.  Brothers and Sisters, let us encourage each other in the time we have on this earth, that we preach as dying men and women, to dying men and women, that they might in grace and mercy, find the salvation that they know to be true, and know of the sweetness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Matthew 8:1-4 

Jesus Cleanses a Man with Leprosy

When Jesus came down from the mountain, large crowds followed Him. And a man with leprosy came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” Jesus reached out with His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

This might become a running theme, but as usual I’m going to end with an excerpt from Shai Linne’s song “Startling Mystery”

“Sovereign Lord, who can truly understand Your depths? You give us life, You're the source of every man's breath Your mysteries, the sharpest of minds can't guess They stand perplexed, can't fathom what you plan next In the garden, we failed Your command's test We transgressed, now our world is a grand mess Lord, You're perfect, so why should You demand less? Man's best is only a sinking sand quest

But through Christ, watch God saving hand flex Redeemed the people, North, South, East, and West Glorious robes, in the Promised Land, dressed We stand blessed, all because of the Lamb's death 

So as we're liftin' up our praise to You, receive it, Lord The object of our affection, whom we adore Fallen in our misery, You darted into history The pardon of iniquity, startling the mystery

The oceans, the planes, the mountains, the rain The universe proclaims the glory of Your Name And what am I that You called me to Your side? And took this heart of stone and broke it open wide”

Friends, keep each other in prayer, that we walk in a manner that is pleasing to our King. 

Coram Deo 

-Gong 

6:16pm

12 December 2020