The Noetic Effects of Sin & Apologetics

The term noetic means “of, relating to, or based on the intellect.”¹ The noetic effects of sin are the effects of sin on the human mind. Man’s fallen nature is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil,”² and that includes the rational faculty. Man’s intellect has not escaped the fall, but is just as corrupt as the rest of his nature.

The text of Scripture is remarkably clear about the noetic effects of sin. Sin, contrary to some views, doesn’t only corrupt the affections. “For in his discussion of a corrupt nature Paul not only condemns the inordinate impulses of the appetites that are seen, but especially contends the mind is given over to blindness and the heart to depravity.”³

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools . . .

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:18–22, 25)⁴

because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so (Rom. 8:7)

But a natural man does not accept the depths of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually examined.⁵ (1 Corinthians 2:14)

. . . the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:4)

Therefore this I say, and testify in the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their mind, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart. (Ephesians 4:17–18)

Note all the rational terms. Not only is man’s intellect tarnished by sin, but he doesn’t stand in total ignorance or indifferent towards God. The Bible describes the unbeliever as knowing the true God, yet actively suppressing the truth, and even hostile towards him. The effect of sin on the mind is futility and foolishness. Fallen man is unable to understand, believe, and submit to God’s revelation. In summary: “Human reason, therefore, neither approaches, nor strives toward, nor even takes a straight aim at, this truth: to understand who the true God is or what sort of God he wished to be toward us.”⁶

This biblical doctrine of the noetic effects of sin has received proper emphasis in Reformed theology.⁷ First, from John Calvin:

The true principles held by the human mind resemble sparks; but these are choked by the depravity of our nature, before they have been applied to their proper use. All men know, for instance, that there is a God, and that it is our duty to worship him; but such is the power of sin and ignorance, that from this confused knowledge we pass all at once to an idol, and worship it in the place of God. And even in the worship of God, it leads to great errors, particularly in the first table of the law.⁸

The Canons of Dort state in the third and fourth heads of doctrine: “In contrast to the gifts given in creation, he caused in his mind blindness, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment, in his will and heart wickedness, rebellion, and hardness, and in all his affections impurity.”⁹ Likewise the Westminster Larger Catechism answer 28: “The punishments of sin in this world, are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart.” The Scriptures and Reformed testimony is clear: the intellect of man has not escaped the fall untarnished, sin “having corrupted his entire nature.”¹⁰

The question remains: what bearing does this have on apologetics? Though Scripture is clear regarding the noetic effects of sin, there is a disconnect between theology and apologetic practice in most of Christianity. We even see the biblical teaching contradicted by the apologetic method of some who subscribe to the aforementioned Reformed and Presbyterian standards. 

Fallen man does not acknowledge God as God. Thus he denies his own creation in God’s image. He denies creation’s relationship to the Creator. He interprets himself and the world around him apart from God—attempting autonomy. His life-system will be decidedly godless. 

As fallen he will not—and morally cannot—love God, profess knowledge of Him, or reason in a way that is subject to the authority of God’s revelation. The sinner must constantly attempt to be what he is not: autonomous and free of God. Thus the unbeliever looks upon the world as contingent (the diverse facts are what they are by chance), he looks upon the standards of logic as abstract (the unifying principles of reason are not derived from experience but legislatively imposed on it), he looks upon himself as autonomous (his own laws or principles or experience will be the final judge of truth and meaning), and finally he looks upon man, the world, and logic as all religiously neutral (they can be understood totally apart from God and His revelation). The unbeliever will consider his thinking and interpretation to be normal and normative.¹¹

Therefore, the Christian cannot engage in an apologetic method the requires the unbeliever to be a neutral and objective judge of the reasonableness of Christianity. The unbeliever does not understand anything truly because he does not submit to the God who Created everything. To him, the facts are not God’s facts, to be interpreted in reference to God, but facts awaiting interpretation by autonomous man (brute facts). The unbeliever, because of his radical corruption, is unable to deal objectively with the facts. Van Til says of the fallen consciousness of man:

It builds upon the nontheistic assumption. It in effect denies its creaturehood. It claims to be normal. It will not be receptive of God’s interpretation; it wants to create its own interpretation without reference to God.¹²

Sin has created an absolute ethical antithesis between believer and unbeliever.¹³ This conflict always obtains, and is of a religious nature (not metaphysical, in the realm of being). There is a noetic divide through humanity, two contrary epistemologies. In principle, then, the believer and unbeliever do not agree on anything. There is no neutral ground on which to argue or present evidence for Christianity over-against unbelief.

When man became a sinner, he made himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point. And it is precisely this presupposition, as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy, that must be brought into question. . . The sinner has cemented colored glasses to his eyes which he cannot remove. And all is yellow to the jaundiced eye.¹⁴

K. Scott Oliphint points out, regarding Van Til’s glasses metaphor: “The blindness of sin does not mean that we cannot see; it means rather that everything that we see is colored by our condition of depravity. What we see, therefore, we inevitably twist according to our sinful desires.”¹⁵ Though not annihilated, the rational faculty of man is corrupted. The unregenerate knows 2 + 2 = 4, but he expels God from the equation. The non-Christian cannot understand anything truly because suppresses the truth of the Triune God who created, preserves, and governs all his creatures and all their actions. The unbeliever is unavoidably anti-theistic in his thinking. 

It is therefore impossible to appeal to the intellectual and moral nature of men, as men themselves interpret this nature, and say that it must judge of the credibility and evidence of revelation. For if this is done, we are virtually telling the natural man to accept just so much and no more of Christianity as, with his perverted concept of human nature, he cares to accept.¹⁶

The Christian cannot think that our apologetic is one of simply giving more information to the unbeliever, as if that will make a difference. The unbeliever is bombarded with God’s self-revelation every waking hour, yet exchanges the truth for a lie. Because of sin, he cannot deal objectively with the facts. We may not present arguments and evidence to the one whose mind is hostile towards the God he knows, and beg for a positive verdict. The rebellious creature is not the judge, before whose bar we make our case. He is incompetent to judge rightly. What is needed is a change of mind—repentance. Unless he be born again, he will not bow the knee to Christ. 

The non-Christian thinks that his thinking process is normal. He thinks that his mind is the final court of appeal in all matters of knowledge. He takes himself to be the reference point for all interpretation of the facts. That is, he has epistemologically become a law unto himself: autonomous.  Consequently, the depravity and alleged autonomy of man’s thinking prevent 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 his repentance—repentance in the world of thought.¹⁷

Bare facts and arguments are just more grist for the unrighteousness mill. The whole of creation testifies of the one true and living God, for God has made himself known in what he has made (Ps. 19:1–2; Rom. 1:19–20). The unbeliever possesses and suppresses the truth of God. The natural man, dead in sin, cannot understand God rightly. Thus it is futile to expect him to follow the evidence to Jesus or reason his way to salvation. In our apologetic, we cannot approach the unbeliever as if his mind is not totally depraved. The unbeliever is not the final arbiter of truth, and so our Christian apologetic cannot be an appeal to the sinful, autonomous human intellect.

Footnotes:

1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: of, relating to, or based on the intellect. Noetic derives from the Greek adjective noētikos, meaning “intellectual,” from the verb noein (“to think”) and ultimately from the noun nous, meaning “mind.” [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noetic]
2. Westminster Confession of Faith 6.4
3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (edited by John T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles) vol. 1, pg. 253
4. All Scripture citations are from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) unless otherwise noted [lsbible.org]
5. Italics always original in Scripture citations.
6. Calvin, Institutes vol. 1, pg. 278
7. By “Reformed theology,” I mean the whole “system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures” contained in the Westminster Standards, and likewise the Three Forms of Unity. In short, more than the Doctrines of Grace.
8. Calvin, John. Calvin’s Complete Bible Commentaries (With Active Table of Contents in Biblical Order) (Kindle Locations 472691-472695). Kindle Edition. 
9. Godfrey, W. Robert. Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort (p. 53). Reformation Trust Publishing. Kindle Edition.
10. Belgic Confession art. 14
11. Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended pg. 17–18
12. Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Fourth Edition) edited by K. Scott Oliphint, pg. 72
13. K. Scott Oliphint, ”What is Presuppositional Apologetics?” Westminster Theological Seminary [http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/so105_copyright.mp3]
14. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, pg. 101
15. Ibid. 
16. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, pg. 105
17. Bahnsen, Greg. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, loc. 715. Kindle Edition. 

What is the Transcendental Argument?

The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG, for short), is the distinctive feature of Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic method. It was he who asserted that Christianity as a philosophy, as a complete world-and-life-view, necessitates a specific methodology for defense. Due to the doctrine of God, doctrine of revelation, doctrine of man, and the whole system of theology, that particular method would be transcendental. 

What does transcendental even mean? Greg Bahnsen explains:

The term “transcendental” should not be confused with the similar sounding word “transcendent” (an adjective for whatever goes beyond human experience). Transcendental reasoning is concerned to discover what general conditions must be fulfilled for any particular instance of knowledge to be possible; it has been central to the philosophies of secular thinkers such as Aristotle and Kant, and it has become a matter of inquiry in contemporary, analytically minded philosophy. Van Til asks what view of man, mind, truth, language, and the world is necessarily presupposed by our conception of knowledge and our methods of pursuing it. For him, the transcendental answer is supplied at the very first step of man’s reasoning—not by autonomous philosophical speculation, but by transcendent revelation from God.

—Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis pg. 5–6 footnote

It is important to set this in the context of argumentation. There are different kinds of arguments. Different arguments have been used in service of Christianity. Van Til himself defines what a transcendental argument is, in contrast to deductive and inductive arguments:

A truly transcendental argument takes any fact of experience which it wishes to investigate, and tries to determine what the presuppositions of such a fact must be, in order to make it what it is. An exclusively deductive argument would take an axiom such as that every cause must have an effect, and reason in a straight line from such an axiom, drawing all manner of conclusions about God and man. A purely inductive argument would begin with any fact and seek in a straight line for a cause of such an effect, and thus perhaps conclude that this universe must have had a cause. Both of these methods have been used, as we shall see, for the defense of Christianity. Yet neither of them could be thoroughly Christian unless they already presupposed God. Any method, as was pointed out above, that does not maintain that not a single fact can be known unless it be that God gives that fact meaning, is an anti-Christian method. . . Now the only argument for an absolute God that holds water is a transcendental argument.  [emphasis added]

—Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology pg. 10–11

You may hear the resemblance to both the classical and evidentialist methods of apologetics, in the definitions of deductive and inductive arguments. Take note that Van Til criticizes both types of argumentation as not thoroughly Christian on their own. The conclusion of those types may not be the God of Scripture! God must be presupposed, if these arguments are to be used faithfully under the Lordship of Christ. Van Til  advocates for the transcendental argument. Rather than move in a “straight line” from an axiom or evidence to God, we must reason indirectly.

Van Til holds that a transcendental argument for God follows naturally from the teaching of the Bible. God is the Creator, distinct from the creation. He is the maker and definer of reality. All that exists is defined according to God’s sovereign purpose. He is the source of all truth and knowledge, and he knows all things. Nothing that exists has independent meaning. And no human observer can define any part of reality, or have any knowledge, without reference to God. There is not a single autonomous atom, and no man can be original in his thinking. In short, God is absolute. Therefore, we must not hypothesize about the existence of the Triune God, but presuppose him as we argue for Christianity. Otherwise, we deny God’s self-revelation!

Simply put, we go behind all the issues to the very foundation. All the reasons and evidences marshalled for or against Christianity are not the real issue. Both sides have access to the same information, and yet come to different conclusions. It would appear we are at an impasse. What is to be done, then? How are we to argue with the unbeliever? Indirectly, to their presuppositions. We make the transcendental argument. We make the claim that Christianity is the only answer. The Triune God alone can give meaning to any field of knowledge, any discipline. The only reasonable worldview is the Christian worldview. We look behind whatever is under consideration, and show how God is there. 

It has appeared that in the Christian doctrine of the self-contained ontological Trinity we have the foundational concept of a Christian theory of being, of knowledge, and of action. Christians are interested in showing to those who believe in no god or in a god, a beyond, some ultimate or absolute, that it is this God in whom they must believe lest all meaning should disappear from human words. Christians are interested in showing to those who hold that “God” possibly (or probably) exists but possibly (or probably) does not exist, that the words possibility and probability have no meaning unless the God of Christianity actually exists. It is their conviction that the actuality of the existence of this God is the presupposition of all possible predication.

—Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics Second Edition (edited by William Edgar) pg. 39

Another technical term, predication, needs defining: “Technically, it means a true affirmation, or assigning meaning. In lay terms it means being able to make sense of something.” (Ibid, footnote) You can’t make sense of anything without God. God is necessary for all reasoning and experience. God is necessary to even talk about “proof.” Here you see the strength of this apologetic. There is no room for another possibility. No options. It is an apologetic that offers no quarter. It’s the Triune God, or no god. All meaning is based on the true God, or there is no meaning at all. The transcendental argument makes an absolute claim for the true God, and the Christian worldview, against all other philosophies of men. Christianity is not merely the best choice. It’s not the most likely perspective. It’s not most probably true. It’s not just better than atheism or Islam. It’s not just more reasonable than Buddhism or Mormonism. Christianity is not your best bet. It’s not even a bet. It’s the only reasonable worldview.

Van Til offers a helpful architectural illustration for how the transcendental argument works:

Thus the transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is. It does not seek to find whether the house has a foundation, but it presupposes that it has one. We hold that the anti-Christian method, whether deductive or inductive, may be compared to a man who would first insist that the statue of William Penn on the city hall of Philadelphia can be intelligently conceived of without the foundation on which it stands, in order afterwards to investigate whether or not this statue really has a foundation.

—Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology pg. 11

Here is the argument in compact form: the proof of God’s existence is that without him, you couldn’t prove anything at all. It sounds like a rhetorical trick or a word-game, doesn’t it? Undoubtedly, some purported apologists use it as such. But it’s not. It is actually a profound and sophisticated argument. It succeeds where the standard theistic proofs fail. Notice how strong a claim this is: to even consider proving something requires the existence of the Triune God. As Greg Bahnsen famously said in a public debate about God, his opponent (an atheist) conceded the point the minute he agreed to debate! God is necessary, even to challenge his existence. The little girl can only slap her daddy’s face because she’s supported on his knee, as Van Til would say. The Triune God is the only way to account for knowledge and experience. Either the true and living God revealed in Scripture exists, or nothing makes sense. Christianity is reasonable by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary.

How does the transcendental argument play out, practically? We ask: given any fact or experience, what are the presuppositions behind that fact that make it possible? We don’t just talk with the unbeliever about facts all day, but we deal with the assumptions behind those facts.¹ This transcendental method allows apologetics to arise naturally out of daily life. There is no abrupt, awkward, “Have you ever considered the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?” Or, “I want to tell you the Kalam Cosmological argument.” Please make an appointment for that talk. You’ll hear, “call my people.” Instead, with a presuppositional apologetic, we can start anywhere, with anything. We don’t start with God’s existence as the topic, necessarily. In our thinking he is prior, and in reality God is there. But in the conversation, we may begin with any concern, any challenge, argument or piece of evidence, and then work backwards to the transcendental. It can be an overt objection to Christianity in the realm of ethics: “How can two people who love each other be wrong?” Or a charge of inconsistency: “If God is all-good and all-powerful, why evil?” It could even be from a movie or show you just watched with a friend that promoted a certain moral value. Or a current event in society. We then draw out that God is behind whatever is under discussion, as the necessary precondition. It is an indirect argument for the existence of God, that in fact does not question God’s existence, or consign it to the realm of possibility.

Van Til argued that biblical theology demands a transcendental approach to defending the faith. It’s not merely one tool in the apologetic toolbox, but is the necessary implication of that system of faith taught by Scripture. In other words, the Bible itself requires this apologetic method. Whatever other lines of reasoning and evidence are employed in your apologetic (yes, we may use them), they must be in service of the transcendental argument. God is presupposed at the outset of argumentation. The proof of God is that without him you can’t prove anything at all.

1 I am indebted to K. Scott Oliphint for this simple breakdown, in what I believe to be the single most helpful lecture on presuppositionalism that I have ever heard: ”What is Presuppositional Apologetics?” Westminster Theological Seminary [http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/so105_copyright.mp3]