Presuppositional defense against deism

[Confessor]

On p. 196 in Van Til's Apologetic, Bahnsen says, "Accordingly, if God is to be properly known and the intellectual effects of man's fallen condition are to be corrected, a deistic or redemptionless worldview is inadequate." This sentence is linked to footnote 83, which reads in part, "A merely 'natural religion'...is philosophically inadequate because man now corrupts and mishandles natural revelation and does not have the means in himself to rescue himself from this plight."

It seems that a very easy defense of unbelievers against presuppositionalism would be turn to deism and claim that they posit some creator-god who makes knowledge possible. According to Bahnsen and Van Til, though, this is inadequate because man is clearly in a sinful state and therefore needs redemption. If an apologist is successful, he will make the unregenerate realize that he is suppressing some knowledge (since the unbeliever's espoused philosophy would destroy all knowledge, yet he has knowledge). But can pointing out that someone is sinful work to disprove deism? Why couldn't the unbeliever say, "Yeah, the deistic God created flawed humans"?

I was wondering if (1) anyone knew how to respond to this hypothetical objection, and (2) if anyone knew of any other defenses of Christianity against deism.

Perhaps whatever killed the deist movement in the 17th and 18th centuries would be helpful. Also, I can imagine the fact that since deists have no revelation (it's a "natural religion"), that could play a huge role.

 

[rbcbob]

On p. 196 in Van Til's Apologetic, Bahnsen says, "Accordingly, if God is to be properly known and the intellectual effects of man's fallen condition are to be corrected, a deistic or redemptionless worldview is inadequate." This sentence is linked to footnote 83, which reads in part, "A merely 'natural religion'...is philosophically inadequate because man now corrupts and mishandles natural revelation and does not have the means in himself to rescue himself from this plight."

It seems that a very easy defense of unbelievers against presuppositionalism would be turn to deism and claim that they posit some creator-god who makes knowledge possible. According to Bahnsen and Van Til, though, this is inadequate because man is clearly in a sinful state and therefore needs redemption. If an apologist is successful, he will make the unregenerate realize that he is suppressing some knowledge (since the unbeliever's espoused philosophy would destroy all knowledge, yet he has knowledge). But can pointing out that someone is sinful work to disprove deism? Why couldn't the unbeliever say, "Yeah, the deistic God created flawed humans"?

I was wondering if (1) anyone knew how to respond to this hypothetical objection, and (2) if anyone knew of any other defenses of Christianity against deism.

Perhaps whatever killed the deist movement in the 17th and 18th centuries would be helpful. Also, I can imagine the fact that since deists have no revelation (it's a "natural religion"), that could play a huge role.

Only the Holy Spirit can convince an enemy of the Truth that he is guilty of suppressing the Truth.

The best defense against deism is the Self-Revealing, Living, Active and Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.'

 

[Confessor]

Only the Holy Spirit can convince an enemy of the Truth that he is guilty of suppressing the Truth.

Well, the unbeliever can recognize it to an extent without being regenerated (if there was not some willful act involved it would not be sin). The Holy Spirit can turn his heart to repent for it, but regeneration is not necessary to make him realize he's suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

 

[rbcbob]

Only the Holy Spirit can convince an enemy of the Truth that he is guilty of suppressing the Truth.

Well, the unbeliever can recognize it to an extent without being regenerated (if there was not some willful act involved it would not be sin). The Holy Spirit can turn his heart to repent for it, but regeneration is not necessary to make him realize he's suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

I was particularly calling attention to the Spirit's work in convincing the conscience of the unbeliever that he is sinning. John 16:8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: As it relates to apologetics the believer must keep in mind what his limitations are and be ever dependent upon the Spirit to do that which only He can do. The word in the original for convict in Jn 16:8 means to convict, refute, confute, generally with a suggestion of the shame of the person convicted -Thayer's Lexicon

 

[Confessor]

Only the Holy Spirit can convince an enemy of the Truth that he is guilty of suppressing the Truth.

Well, the unbeliever can recognize it to an extent without being regenerated (if there was not some willful act involved it would not be sin). The Holy Spirit can turn his heart to repent for it, but regeneration is not necessary to make him realize he's suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

I was particularly calling attention to the Spirit's work in convincing the conscience of the unbeliever that he is sinning. John 16:8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: As it relates to apologetics the believer must keep in mind what his limitations are and be ever dependent upon the Spirit to do that which only He can do. The word in the original for convict in Jn 16:8 means to convict, refute, confute, generally with a suggestion of the shame of the person convicted -Thayer's Lexicon

I understand that, and it's very important. But still...what logical contradiction can the apologist point out in the deist's worldview? The deist is still damned and without excuse whether the apologist is successful or not, but how can the apologist break down the deist's worldview?

 

[rbcbob]

Well, the unbeliever can recognize it to an extent without being regenerated (if there was not some willful act involved it would not be sin). The Holy Spirit can turn his heart to repent for it, but regeneration is not necessary to make him realize he's suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

I was particularly calling attention to the Spirit's work in convincing the conscience of the unbeliever that he is sinning. John 16:8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: As it relates to apologetics the believer must keep in mind what his limitations are and be ever dependent upon the Spirit to do that which only He can do. The word in the original for convict in Jn 16:8 means to convict, refute, confute, generally with a suggestion of the shame of the person convicted -Thayer's Lexicon

I understand that, and it's very important. But still...what logical contradiction can the apologist point out in the deist's worldview? The deist is still damned and without excuse whether the apologist is successful or not, but how can the apologist break down the deist's worldview?

I appreciate your quest for bringing the unbeliever to concede the vacuity of his position and it is a worthy desire. Let me begin with this qualification before I toss out any proposal. If success entails the unbeliever surrendering his heart to the Lord of Glory and bowing to Eternal Truth then it must be conceded that such success is utterly dependent upon the sovereign, gracious work of the Holy Spirit.

That being said, I might point out to the deist that he has no authority for predicating his insights regarding the Creator if he does not square his propositions with the authoritative Word given by the Creator. His supposed insights are no more valid than that of the local cartoonist or the atheist teaching theology at the university. This is the truth and it is incumbent upon him to acknowledge such. Of course we know that it will take the interposition of God to bring him to such an admission.

 

[Craig]

On p. 196 in Van Til's Apologetic, Bahnsen says, "Accordingly, if God is to be properly known and the intellectual effects of man's fallen condition are to be corrected, a deistic or redemptionless worldview is inadequate." This sentence is linked to footnote 83, which reads in part, "A merely 'natural religion'...is philosophically inadequate because man now corrupts and mishandles natural revelation and does not have the means in himself to rescue himself from this plight."

It seems that a very easy defense of unbelievers against presuppositionalism would be turn to deism and claim that they posit some creator-god who makes knowledge possible. According to Bahnsen and Van Til, though, this is inadequate because man is clearly in a sinful state and therefore needs redemption. If an apologist is successful, he will make the unregenerate realize that he is suppressing some knowledge (since the unbeliever's espoused philosophy would destroy all knowledge, yet he has knowledge). But can pointing out that someone is sinful work to disprove deism? Why couldn't the unbeliever say, "Yeah, the deistic God created flawed humans"?

I was wondering if (1) anyone knew how to respond to this hypothetical objection, and (2) if anyone knew of any other defenses of Christianity against deism.

Perhaps whatever killed the deist movement in the 17th and 18th centuries would be helpful. Also, I can imagine the fact that since deists have no revelation (it's a "natural religion"), that could play a huge role.

A simple response would be a question: How do you know that God is the god of Deism?

He may use a cosmological argument, but he will run into the problem of personality and communication since his god is not a god of revelation.

 

[snap_dragon]

 

[steven-nemes]

I think calling human beings sinful begs the question: the deistic God need not give human beings moral laws to live by, and therefore people are not sinful, because there is no law.

 

[Confessor]

A simple response would be a question: How do you know that God is the god of Deism?

He may use a cosmological argument, but he will run into the problem of personality and communication since his god is not a god of revelation.

I'm positive that, whatever the critique may be, it has to do with the fact that the deist god is not revealed. Since Christians posit a God who allows for knowledge, etc., and since Christians start with the self-evident authority of Scripture, it makes sense that a deist would not be allowed to do so.

But then I thought, if Plato is allowed to posit an entire world of Ideal Forms, why can't a deist honestly posit a deistic god? And once he can do that, he can give the god all sorts of annoying characteristics.



-----Added 6/3/2009 at 02:11:40 EST-----

I think calling human beings sinful begs the question: the deistic God need not give human beings moral laws to live by, and therefore people are not sinful, because there is no law.

For sure. That's why I said that the deist would respond that he made human beings "flawed." Pointing out a mistake in the unbeliever could easily be brushed aside as due to human finiteness rather than sin.

 

[steven-nemes]

I suppose for pragmatic reasons, a deistic god who cares not about human affairs and is unconcerned about human suffering and desires is not as desirable as the Christian god who does care for human suffering, has an explanation for it, and has a solution to it as well. This doesn't prove the Christan God to be true by any means, but it is a god that many more would rather believe in.

 

[Confessor]

I suppose for pragmatic reasons, a deistic god who cares not about human affairs and is unconcerned about human suffering and desires is not as desirable as the Christian god who does care for human suffering, has an explanation for it, and has a solution to it as well. This doesn't prove the Christan God to be true by any means, but it is a god that many more would rather believe in.

In that case, I guess it would come down to whether a person finds the self-denial required in Christianity desirable. They might see it as a trade-off.

 

[steven-nemes]

I suppose for pragmatic reasons, a deistic god who cares not about human affairs and is unconcerned about human suffering and desires is not as desirable as the Christian god who does care for human suffering, has an explanation for it, and has a solution to it as well. This doesn't prove the Christan God to be true by any means, but it is a god that many more would rather believe in.

In that case, I guess it would come down to whether a person finds the self-denial required in Christianity desirable. They might see it as a trade-off.

Well if a person prefers living a hedonistic lifestyle and having nowhere to go when the pleasures he sought after didn't quite satisfy him, that is fine for him; I'd let him have it. I'd say Christianity is pragmatically more desirable than other religions or philosophies.