Baker Encylopedia of Apologetics on the Noetic Effects of sin:
The problem is not that unbelievers are not aware of God’s existence but that they do not want to accept him because of the moral consequences this would have on their sinful lives. They do not “know” (Gk. ginomskom, which frequently means to “know by experience). They know God in their mind (Rom. 1:19–20), but they have not accepted him in their heart (Rom. 1:18). “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’ ” (Ps. 14:1).
Somehow the Baker Encylopedia of Christian Apologetics [hereafter BECA] has missed the point. The assertion that the sinner is rationally evaluating the evidences which points to some moral ramification completely misunderstands *what* the noetic effects of sin are on the mind. Further it misrepresents Van Til [here after VT] by asserting that he conceded that this was a “difficult point”
Here is how the BECA quotes VT:
Even Van Til saw the tension in his own view. He speaks of it as a “difficult point,” one which “we cannot give any wholly satisfactory account of the situation as it actually obtains” (Introduction to Systematic Theology, 15).
This is an ambigous quotation by BECA, as it seems to read that Van Til is *admitting* that the unbeliever has weighed the moral ramifications of his unbelief and has decided that he cannot accept Christianity because of those ramifications.
This is not at all what VT was referring to, rather his quote taken in context is this:
“We are well aware of the fact that non-Christians have a great deal of knowledge about this world which is true as far as it goes. That is, there is a sense in which we can and must allow for the value of knowledge of non-Christians. This has always been a difficult point. It is often the one great source of confusion on the question of faith in its relation to reason. We should admit that we cannot give any wholly satisfactory account of the situation as it actually obtains. “
Van Til is referring to the non-believers knowledge of the world, _not_knowledge_of_the_moral_ramifications_of _believing_the_gospel. In relation to *God* the unbeliever knows that there is a God, and yet suppresses this knowledge in unrighteousness. The BECA almost seems incredulous when it inquires of Van Til’s view that an unbeliever errs with nearly every statement they make. [emphasis added]
Sadly, the question begging doesn’t stop there. Dr. Frame is even quoted as saying in response to Van Til’s teaching on the destruction of reason by sin he says:
“To deny the restraint [of common grace], as Van Til appears to do in the present context, is to deny common grace itself”
One has to wonder if Dr. Frame’s quote is also taken out of context. Surely Dr. Frame as a staunch presuppositionalist himself, wouldn’t argue that common grace entails the *ability* to choose or reject God based on the moral consequences of that choice? Doesn’t the rejection of noetic effects of sin [as Van Til posited them] really involve what all Reformed Christians know to be true? Man is dead in his trespasses and sins, and that there is no one that is righteous. Van Til argues contra BECA that every statement *unbelieving* man makes about God will most certainly be wrong.
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (Page 541). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
Van Til, C., & Sigward, E. H. (1997). The works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895-1987 (electronic ed.). New York: Labels Army Co.
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (Page 541). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (Page 541). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
