Always Ready: Chap. 10 & 11 Common Ground & Point of Contact

We're still on apologetics. That's our review slide. I want to just review very quickly the first section of the book.

Remember, the book is broken up into several sections, and the first section is the lordship of Christ in the realm of knowledge.

That was all foundational. We looked at the robbery of neutrality, the immorality of neutrality, and again, the whole basis for that was to show that there is no neutrality in the thinking and the life of the

Christian, and especially in this world. Why did Bonson make such a big point of that?

Why would he devote the whole first chapter, the whole first section? Why is that an issue?

He's laying the foundation. But why is he so hard on this subject of neutrality?

What's his motivation for doing that? Sarah? Because a lot of people bring it up, try to use it as an argument.

Only atheists use that argument, right? You're going to get that argument against presuppositionalism from within other members of churches.

That's one of the things that I want to point out. This is not just because we're going to be arguing or debating with atheists, but even other

Christians develop, say, well, we can start off on a bed of neutrality.

And so the whole first section was to show the futility of that and how you cannot do that as a

Christian. So in the past couple of weeks, we looked at the second section, which is called the conditions necessary for the apologetic task.

In other words, once the foundation is laid, how are you going to go about the task?

Not quite how are you going to, that's the next book, the next chapter. But we found out that there were three main oppositions.

The first opposition, and again, this comes also from people within the church, not just from people outside the church.

And the first opposition or criticism of the presupp method is that you become arrogant and aloof.

That's a criticism, and chapter 8 dealt with that. Chapter 9 says that if this is true, if your presuppositions are right, if there's no neutrality, they say that, well, then a nonbeliever can know nothing, which is ridiculous.

We know that nonbelievers can know certain things. So this week now, we're going to look at the third of the criticisms, and the title of the chapter is

Common Ground, which is not neutral. If we get that far, we'll look at chapter 11 also, what point of contact is and is not found in the realm of dealing with nonbelievers.

I don't know how to remember. This is my first time going through this book, so I don't know exactly how long.

Well, a lot depends on you too. It depends on how many questions you have. So we'll go at whatever pace is necessary so that everybody understands.

All right, so chapter 10, Common Ground, which is not neutral. That's the whole point. What we're saying is from a presupp point of view, we can have common ground, just not neutral ground.

There's a difference, and hopefully we'll show that. I'm going to read this.

This is the first, the opening paragraph of chapter 10. Of course, this is from the

Bonson book, Always Ready. In the previous two studies, we have seen the necessity of presupposing

God's revealed truth in order to attain knowledge of anything, from the chemical composition of water to the way of salvation.

And it does not, now notice what it does not. It does not generate unreasoning arrogance.

We saw that in chapter 8. It does not deprive unbelievers of the knowledge of the world.

And then the third charge, which is what we're going to deal with tonight, is that the third charge is that against the epistemological position of Christian presuppositionalism, how about that,

I got through it, is that it precludes meaningful discussion and successful argumentation with non -Christians.

It does not. Allegedly, and notice the word allegedly.

This is not something that we're saying is true. We're saying this is not true. This is what is leveled against us.

Allegedly, a presuppositionalist denies that there is any common ground between believers and unbelievers.

And thus the apologist would have no point of contact with the unbeliever and no basis upon which he could communicate ideas.

Do you see what the criticism is? I want you to understand the criticism before we go on to refute it.

What they're saying is, the critics are saying, if you hold to the presuppositional view of apologetics, you have no point, no common ground whatsoever.

You can't even talk to a non -believer if there's no such thing as common ground. And what we're saying, that's not what we're saying.

We're saying that there is no neutral ground, but there most certainly is common ground. Before giving

Bonson's answer to this criticism, I want to point out this is what's called a straw man fallacy.

Who's familiar with the term straw man fallacy? Okay, quite a few of you.

Firstly, let's define what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning based upon poor or faulty logic.

And I took this definition out of, not Wikipedia, but from a good source.

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument to a point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

You follow that? Now, we're used to this as reformed. Where do we usually run up against this as reformed people?

What's that? Replacement theology. Replacement theology. What else? Do you see it a lot?

Total depravity. Total depravity. I'm thinking more of election. You know, what do we see?

But when somebody comes again, oh, you're a Calvinist? Oh, you believe in election? You believe that, you know, and they come up with some outrageous thing that, you know, people are crying to get into heaven.

God says, no, you can't come. That's a straw man. That's not what we believe, all right?

But that's what I would say that probably between 80 % and 90 % of the books written against Calvinism paint, build a straw man, and then tear the straw man down.

But they never really touch our basic argument. Okay? So we don't want to do the same thing.

So the third criticism of presuppositionalism is, in fact, the straw man fallacy. The claim that the myth of neutrality is the same as no common ground at all is fallacious.

It's false. All right? Am I making my point so far?

All right. There is common ground. And Bonson's going to very systematically go through and show the basis of what is not common ground and what is.

So Bonson says this. A proper response to this line of attack requires that we take account, one, the

God who we represent. And I want you to note carefully these three points. Two is the sinner to whom we speak.

And three, the context in which we reason with him. This is what

Bonson is saying. If you really want to understand that we have common ground, where it is found and where it is not found, we have to take into consideration these three things.

One, who is God? Two, who are the sinners that we're going to deal with?

And then three, the context in which we have to reason with the person. Okay? Making sense so far?

So let's start off with who is God? All right. The Lord God is creator of heaven and earth.

Our understanding should begin here. Okay? I think that's a very logical place to start, don't you think?

That God is the creator of heaven and earth. All right? He has made everything. And Bonson puts a lot of scripture in here, which

I think is very appropriate as well. He has made everything. In him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible.

All men are his creations, the rich and the poor. All men. Now notice he started out with the universal.

Everything was created by God. And I like the way he does it. He starts from that universal affirmative and to show that that by natural reason and logic includes all the specifics.

But then he goes on and names the specifics. Okay? So it starts with all things.

All right? Then he goes all men are his creations. The Lord has made all things for himself.

Notice what is the reason for there. Why is there this creation? If you ask most people that, it will be some sort of man -centered reason.

It is for our benefit. It is for us. And, you know, therefore, you know, grab all the gusto you can get because you only go around once in this world.

God was lonely. Yeah, that's another one. And, unfortunately, that one is used by many

Christians. I hope everybody realizes that God was not lonely. Theology is important.

How do we know that God is not lonely? What doctrine tells us? The trinity.

All things have been created through him and unto him. Notice again, through him and unto him.

Notice how Bonson is doing this. By the way, as we go through Bonson's book, we can learn things other than the apologetics that he's addressing.

If you watch the way Bonson writes, he builds, he lays the foundation, and he builds, and he builds.

And that's why I think your graphic of building the house down here is a perfect one for showing how

Bonson addresses his argumentation. His sovereign dominion extends over every single thing in the world.

He's making his point. Every single thing in the world. He works all things according to his counsel.

All right. Why do things happen the way they do? It's according to the counsel of God. And every minute of the day belongs to him.

Notice he gets away now from specific things for a minute and says time.

Everything that happens in time and space, every part of the day belongs to him, even the minutia, even the minute.

He owns everything in creation, and every facet of life should serve him. The earth is the

Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein. God declares whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

Who knows that great quote from Kuiper? Anybody quote that?

There's not one inch of all the earth where Jesus doesn't say mine. Great quote.

Say it again. Say it again. There's not one inch over the entire world where Jesus doesn't say mine.

Amen. As Rahab confessed, the

Lord your God, he is God in heaven above and on earth beneath. Remember, this is all getting to that first way to answer the criticisms.

We need to know who God is. Christians need to be reminded periodically who

God is. That's one of the reasons for preaching, coming to church on Sunday. We are forgetful people.

And left to ourselves, we will forget who God is. Just look at the

Old Testament. If you need any reminder of people who can soon forget, you know.

Yes, Joshua, we will serve the Lord. Me and my house, we will all serve the Lord. What happened?

One generation. Thus the greatness, power, glory, victory, and majesty are his.

For all that are in heaven and earth are his possession. God's sovereign rule extends to the ends of the earth, over every soul, unto all generations.

Body, soul, time. There is nothing that is outside of the sovereign realm of almighty

God. Therefore, the God who created all things rules over all. Now we're starting to get down where he's going to get specific.

The God who created all things rules over all. Why is that important? There is not a square inch of the world, not a split second of time, that is not dependent upon, controlled by, and subservient to God.

Here we come. Even the use of our reason or minds must be according to God's direction and for his glory.

For his sovereign rule is inclusive of the areas of wisdom and knowledge.

So we see that quite literally, in all things, God is to be glorified, 1 Peter 4, 11.

All right, following? I'm not going too fast, am I? The conclusion of this line of thought is forcefully evident.

There can be no neutral ground between the believer and unbeliever, between obedience and rebellion, between respecting and abusing that which belongs to God.

That is, everything Jesus said, He that is not with me is against me.

So if there's anything that we can see, neutrality must go in the realm of knowledge and thought.

Therefore, there is no area in the world in thought, in word, or in deed, which is irrelevant, indifferent, or neutral toward God and his demands.

Notice, he has just blown to smithereens any thought that we can have neutrality, where we can say, well, we can put

God aside, we can put the Bible aside, and we can just have this neutral ground between us and a nonbeliever.

Absolutely not. But he's going to come back to, we can have common ground.

Remember, that's what we're looking at, common ground which is not neutral. Every area of life, every fact are what they are because of God's sovereign decree.

So there is no place a man can flee in order to escape the influence, control, and requirements of God.

In God's world, neutrality is impossible. Thus, the

Christian should be striving to bring unbelieving thinkers to a full realization of God's extensive claim upon them.

Do you see the difference with what he's saying here?

Thus, the Christian should be striving to bring unbelieving thinkers to a full realization of God's extensive claim upon them.

That's not neutrality. It's just the opposite of neutrality.

We're saying, oh no, when you're dealing with a nonbeliever, you have to constantly be reaffirming to him, he is one of God's creations.

All these things that we just showed remind the person who this God is, and our job as the apologist, as the evangelist, is to bring that unbelieving thinker to a full realization of who this

God is that we serve. Go ahead. Is the difference between setting

Christ apart as Lord of your heart or setting aside Jesus as Lord of your heart?

You don't set Jesus aside. No. The universally sustaining, universally reigning, universally revealing

God of the universe has not and cannot afford the creation of even the slightest area of neutrality.

Consequently, the believer is wrong to seek and presume to find a subject matter that will not challenge the unbeliever with the presuppositional demands we have discussed in previous studies.

Follow what he says? It's even wrong. It's not just not efficient, not biblical, but it's wrong to seek that you can find some neutral area of thought to challenge the believer to bring him to God.

It doesn't work. And it's plain wrong to do it. It's against what the scripture says.

The hope that such a neutral topic or fact could become the starting point for an argument which progressively convinces the unbeliever of the truth of God, of God's word, by inches is futile.

And yet, how many times have you seen Christians do exactly this? All right, let's put the Bible aside. Let's start talking about...

All right, let's go through all the different proofs for God, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument. How is that working for you?

Or did I just quote Dr. Phil? That's the one thing about Dr.

Phil I like. I love that phrase. So how's that going for you? Christ is the

Lord even in the world of thought. See that?

Christ is Lord even in the world of thought. So many Christians. And I want you to take this the right way.

I'm talking about good Christian brothers. I'm not talking about, you know, even Namby -Pamby Christians, but some good

Christian brothers just don't get it that Christ is Lord over even the way we think.

And it's to their detriment. No fact, no area of knowledge or wisdom fails to drive home his requirements and manifest his sovereign control.

The starting point for understanding is not neutrality, but reverence for the

Lord. That's where we start. All right?

If you're not starting with the Lord, how are you going to end up with him? So this is the...

I think we will have time to get to 11, which I'm really happy about. The foregoing considerations not only establish that there is no neutral ground between the believers and unbelievers, but also that there is ever -present common ground between the believer and the unbeliever.

Okay? Making a distinction. There's no neutral ground, but there's a lot of common ground, and we're going to get into some of that in the next chapter.

What must be kept in mind is that this common ground is God's ground. All men have in common the world created by God.

You follow? It's okay to... When you're sitting talking with somebody who's a non -believer, and they say, well, let's put

God aside. Just look at the world. Look at this world. How can we start with anything but God?

Because you know that God created this. Now, of course, we want to say that not arrogantly.

You don't want to become arrogant obscurantists. All right? We want to do this in love because that's our goal.

All men have in common the world created by God, controlled by God, and constantly revealing

God. In this case, any area of life or any fact can be used as a point of contact.

The denial of neutrality secures rather than destroys commonality.

You see that? And I don't want to say too much here because we're going to expand on this in Chapter 11.

Any questions at this point so far? And again, I know we haven't examined too much of what this common ground is, but we'll get that in Chapter 11.

Any questions so far? No? Good? Okay.

Let's move right on into Chapter 11. Chapter 11, this is still now under the section,

The Conditions Necessary for the Apologetic Task. Chapter 11, Where Point of Contact Is and Is Not Found.

All right? So we're looking at two different things. First, we're going to see where the point of contact is or is not found.

This is his opening paragraph. Coming to the question of common ground with the unbeliever, we have first considered the

God whom we represent. Since God is the creator of all things, since he sovereignly controls every event, and since he clearly reveals himself in every fact of the created order, it is impossible, it is utterly impossible that there should be any neutral ground, any territory or facet of reality where man is not confronted, where, okay, with the claims of God, any area of knowledge where the theological issue is inconsequential.

Mouthful. What is he saying? He says, as we're dealing with this area now of common ground, not neutral ground, because of creation,

God clearly reveals himself in every facet of the created order. There's common ground.

You can start talking about the creation. Notice what he says. It is utterly impossible that there should be any neutral ground.

Why? Because the creation screams of the creator. And it says, any territory or facet of reality where man is not confronted with the claims of God, any area of knowledge where the theological issue is inconsequential.

In other words, you can't get away from theology. This whole notion that theology is for scholars and pastors is nonsense.

If you're a believer, you're a theologian. The question is, are you a good one? Not a question of whether you're a theologian or you're not.

It's are you a good theologian or are you a poor theologian? Yet this perspective guarantees that there is common ground.

Notice what he says. Our position, this presuppositional position, far from making no point of contact, affirms exactly the opposite.

It guarantees that there is common ground between the believer and the unbeliever. Common ground of a metaphysical nature.

The whole world, the created realm, and public history constitutes commonality between the

Christian and the non -Christian. But this common ground is not neutral ground.

It is God's ground. There is nowhere to stand in the world, even the world of thought, that is not

God's territory. So when you're sitting with an atheist or a non -believer, where are you standing?

You're standing on God's territory. And don't think for one minute that you're not.

In addition to considering the God whom we represent, we must take cognizance of the person to whom we speak.

This is the second of those three points, remember? To refute this, what do we have to do?

We have to take into consideration. What was the first point? Who is God? Second point?

Who is the sinner that we're dealing with? That's what we're getting to now. What's the third point? The context.

Okay. So in addition to considering the God whom we represent, we must take cognizance of the person to whom we speak.

In particular, we must recognize the noetic effects of sin. What does that mean?

How many people know what noetic means? I don't know.

No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Noetic has to do with your reasoning and the intellect.

So what we're talking about is the noetic effects of sin. That means that sin did not just affect our heart condition or our ethical condition, but it affected our intellectual capabilities as well.

What does that mean? That means as a nonbeliever, your brain is not going to necessarily work the way it should.

I shouldn't say brain, the mind. The mind will not work the way it should.

But the proof for this is so simple. You ever see two people read the same verse of scripture and come away with two different meanings?

How can that be? It's not the fault of the scripture. It's what's called the noetic effect of sin on the intellect.

Okay. The fall of man had drastic results in the world of thought.

In fact, how many times? What's the number one effect of sin on the world, on the individual?

Darkened understanding. And what do they want to be? They want to be God. I want to take the place of God.

I want to determine what's best for me. I want to determine what's right, what's wrong. Don't tell me what I can do and what

I can't do. What's that? I want to be God. Okay. Even the use of man's reasoning ability becomes depraved and frustrating.

So we pride ourselves on being able to think logically, right?

Because of noetic effects of sin, you can't even trust that your reasoning is solid, right?

Even once you've been regenerated, some of that still remains, okay?

The whole creation was made subject to vanity, Romans 8 .20, thus bringing confusion, inefficiency, and skeptical despair into the epistemic realm, okay?

Even more, moral corruption overcame man's thoughts. Genesis 6 .5,

everybody's familiar with that. All man did was devise evil continually.

So that the evil use of man's mind became exhaustive, continual, and inescapable.

Man unrighteously suppresses the truth in order to embrace the lie. In his pseudo -wisdom, the world refuses to know

God, for Satan has blinded the minds of men. Notice he says pseudo -wisdom.

Man uses his reason not to glorify God and advance his kingdom, but to rise up in arrogant opposition to the knowledge of God.

Do you see why Bonson says it's important that we know who we're dealing with? You may be sitting across the table from a

PhD in astrophysics, okay? I don't even know what astrophysics is, all right?

Let alone being able to talk about it. But when it comes to, I have to convince that man he can't trust his own reasoning ability because he can't, because it's affected by sin.

And the only way to overturn that is through repentance and regeneration. Oh, I also chuckle a little bit.

We're accused of being arrogant, yet what's usually the case?

The non -believer is very arrogant, all right?

He thinks that we, believing in spirituality, are naive, we're close -minded, and we're out of touch with the real world.

When we say that sin is ethical, we do not mean, however, that sin involved only in the will of man and not also his intellect.

Sin involved every aspect of man's personality. All of man's reactions in every relation in which

God had set him were ethical and not merely intellectual. Look at this last phrase.

The intellectual itself is ethical. Who do you think said that? That's a quotation.

Yes, of course. That's the beloved Cornelius Van Til. But notice what he said.

The intellectual is ethical. If you are askew in your thinking, it's an ethical problem.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin very pointedly remarked that philosophers need to see that man is corrupt in every aspect of his being.

All right, what is that doctrine? The T is true.

That's my favorite doctrine of all, total depravity. The reason it's my favorite is it's the only one

I can live up to. All right, so philosophers need to see that man...

The point, and here's the heartbreaking point, so many of our Christian brothers deny that, all right, that the fall pertains to man's mental operations as much as to his volition and emotions.

This is an important point to remember as you seek common ground in your discussion with nonbelievers.

Remember, we are to seek common ground, just not neutral ground.

I'm going to keep saying that over and over again. This points up why we cannot aim to find common ground in the unbelievers' interpretation of self -conscious understanding of things.

Now notice, there is a place where you can't find common ground, and that's in the unbelievers' interpretation and his self -conscious understanding of how things are in this world, because to enter into his world is to step away from your

God -given position and enter into neutrality, all right?

Why don't you want to take his self -conscious understanding of things other than what

I just said? Because he can't have certainty. That's right, because he can't have certainty.

He is delusional, and by delusion I don't mean that he's seeing things. But his thinking process is wrong.

It's skewed by the noetic effects of sin. All you need is one other person to come along and argue against you and throw a different fact that you didn't consider and blow your position up to prove that you don't have certainty.

Yes? You can think that you're certain until someone comes along and cross -examines you, and then all of a sudden you're not certain anymore.

Sure. Notice again, we cannot aim to find common ground in the unbelievers' interpretation or self -conscious understanding of things, whether they be the laws of logic, the facts of history, or the experiences of human personality.

Well, just look at that, the laws of logic. Do we... Just to point out one of the fallacies of somebody who's thinking that they're logical.

We have a party in power in our country today that believes that you can spend your way out of inflation.

And they believe it! So how can you trust their reasoning? Facts of history.

We know every history book is spot on. It's dead on, dead on accurate. Right? No.

It's an old saying. Who writes the history books? The winners. And who will the history books favor?

The winners. All right. Or the experiences of human personality. Of course, we know that everybody's personality is all in sync with each other.

You see how silly this sounds when you put it in that perspective. But that's what happens when you move out of the presupposition.

The Christian seeks to suppress... The non -Christian seeks to suppress the truth to distort it into a naturalistic scheme to preclude the interpretation of God who makes things and events what they are, determining the end from the beginning.

The non -Christian thinks that his thinking process is normal. Follow that?

The non -Christian thinks that his thinking is thinking normally. I don't know.

I find that funny. See, I thought that was funny, but that's my own abnormal thinking.

That's my wife. She'll tell you how abnormally I think. He thinks his mind is the final court of appeal in all matters of knowledge.

How many times have you heard that? Well, if you can show me in black and white, give me scientific formula, show me a miracle, right?

In other words, I'm the judge. What I think matters.

He takes himself to be the reference point for all interpretation of the facts. That is, he has epistemologically become a law unto himself.

And what do we call that? Autonomy. Consequently, the depravity and alleged autonomy of man's thinking prevents the regenerate

Christian from seeking common ground in the unbeliever's self -conscious and admitted outlook on anything.

Rather than agreeing with the sinner's conception, ordering, or evaluation of his experience, the

Christian seeks repentance. And specifically, repentance in a world of thought.

What does repentance mean? Change of mind. Change in heart. So our approach should be that of Isaiah 55, 7.

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the

Lord. So also the Christian scholar who genuinely desires the spiritual reclamation of the unregenerate thinker.

I want to just pause there. Notice, the Christian scholar who genuinely desires the spiritual reclamation of the unregenerate thinker.

Whenever you are engaged in an apologetic of the gospel, what is your goal?

To be proven right? Or to see the sinner being converted? That's an important point.

You always have to be thinking that. Look, we think that we have the best theology, the best apologetic, and all of that.

And I believe we do. If I thought I was wrong on something, I'd change my mind. All right? But I think that.

But my goal is not to set about to prove everybody just how right our thinking is, but is to get them to come to Christ.

And that's the whole purpose of this. And the apologetic, the presuppositional apologetic is the biblical way to do that.

So we must not allow the unbeliever to diagnose his own condition and thoughts, and then prescribe an insufficient cure.

In the book, Bonson gives the example of a patient going in for, I think, it's heart surgery. And he's telling the doctor exactly how to go about it.

As lunatic as that is, that's, you know, if we allow the nonbeliever to say, well, no, all right,

I hear what you're saying. I got this now. Again, Dr. Phil, how's that working out for you?

All right? The unregenerate thinker does not merely need a band -aid of additional information.

He needs the major internal surgery of regeneration. He needs to forsake his thoughts and be renewed in knowledge after the image of his creator.

He needs to forsake his ungodly thoughts. However, in denying common ground in the area of the non -Christian's autonomous interpretation of experience, the presuppositionalist does not teach that he has no point of contact.

Remember, this is where point of contact is and is not found. And he's going to give a little bit.

The fact that the unbeliever is wrong in his self -conscious interpretive efforts does not mean that he and the

Christian are, epistemologically speaking, like ships passing in the dark. Notice what he's saying.

They're not that way. We are not like ships passing in the dark. For there is something of great significance in common between the believer and the unbeliever.

Now we're going to look and see exactly where do we find this common ground. They are both, irrespective of their saved and lost condition, both creaturely image of God.

Remember, the non -believer is still an image -bearer of God. Even though the image is shattered, he is still an image -bearer.

While the unregenerate needs to be renewed with respect to it, the image of God remains his.

Man cannot cease being man. To be man is to be God's image.

Remember, it's not just a believer who's an image -bearer of God. That's one of the reasons for the death penalty that the scripture gives.

Why is it? Because man is in the image of God. Striking against another man is striking against God's image.

Man is the finite replica of God, being like him in every respect that is appropriate for the creature to resemble

God. Don't forget, we're image -bearers, but there is a creature -creator distinction.

But in every way appropriate, even the non -believer is still an image -bearer of God. Hereby, no man can escape the face of God.

That's why I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that when I'm sitting and dealing with somebody, they say, well, I don't believe in God.

I say, yes, you do. Try to say it without sounding arrogant, but yes, you do.

Deep down in your heart, you know that it's a God. You may be fighting against that, but you know.

And you'd be surprised how often the person will say, well, yeah. Therefore, the believer can find point of contact in his discussion and unbelievers deep down inside them.

Creation establishes forever that no man is beyond the touch of God's revelation. Now, that should be encouraging to those of you, especially those of you who are involved in everyday evangelism or going down to the streets.

No man is beyond the touch of God's revelation. Men have been created with the capacity to understand and recognize the maker's voice.

Van Til says again, 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.

The law of God is still in their heart, broken, shattered, but it's still there. In that fact alone, we may rest secure with respect to the point of contact problem.

But the fact makes man always accessible to God. Only by this 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.

Notice Van Til deals with that third point, the context. There's always going to be a point of context.

That's really the job we have. We know who God is. We know who the sinner is. But finding that point of contact takes practice.

We have seen then thus far that presuppositionalism takes seriously, and this again is extremely important, doctrines of creation,

God's sovereignty, natural revelation, man's creation as the image of God, total depravity.

Remember what I said before, you need to be theologians. How can you do effective evangelism if you don't understand these doctrines?

Because it's these doctrines that will give us the point of contact with them, the common ground, not the neutral ground, but the common ground.

Notice what he says. Presuppositionalism holds that there is very definitely a realm of common ground between believers and non -believers.

Ground is metaphysical in nature, but that common ground is not neutral ground.

Moreover, that ground is not found in the natural man's autonomous conception and interpretation of his experience or the facts of the world.

The Christian does not have a point of contact there, but rather in the actual condition of man as the image of God.

You see what he's saying? Don't look at the man's concept. What he believes is the reality in his world.

You have to address him in the true reality of the world. Don't enter into his thinking.

Hence, it is clear that the third criticism of presuppositionalism, which was rehearsed in an earlier part of the series, is thoroughly groundless.

Far from isolating men in mutually inaccessible towers of thought, presuppositionalism secures both common ground and point of contact between the

Christian and non -Christian. The last sentence is extremely important. It is all a matter of finding them in the right place.

There's your context. I'm either too quick or too slow with my finger.

Questions? Notice what Bonson has done. He has boiled it down to three main criticisms and he has shown that each one of the three is fallacious.