Classical apologetics, which is founded on the truths of Classical Theism, does not reason from a position of neutrality or completely "autonomous" reasoning1, though it is sometimes accused of doing so. Let me cite four Classical Apologists who reject this neutral zone:

To appeal to these things, whether natural revelation, natural law, common notions, or the light of nature, is not in any way a capitulation to a so-called autonomous neutral zone; to appeal to these things is to appeal to God's revelation. In defense of the faith, Christians have two books in their apologetic arsenal, the book of nature and the book of Scripture.2

The knowledge that we gain in the sphere of science is entirely dependent on the bestowal of God's light on the mind. Just as we can see nothing in a dark room, without the light of God we can see no truth. In Aquinas's thought, then, it should be increasingly clear that nature and grace are complementary, not opposed. There is no such thing, according to Aquinas, as autonomous reason, that is, reason unaided by divine revelation. For Aquinas, our very use of intellect is a result of God's grace.3

— R.C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith, Chapter 9 "Natural Theology and Science"

The classical apologist denies the idea that arguments for the existence of God and similar projects are sinful because they supposedly constitute a neutral sector that may or may not be occupied by God depending on the outcome of our arguments. Instead, what the classical apologist is doing is precisely the opposite, namely, demonstrating to the non-Christian that neutral ground is impossible.4

— Winfried Corduan

…there is nothing impious in using arguments with unbelievers that employ their God-given reasoning abilities. Good reasoning is not "autonomous" or "apostate," but rather a God-given way to discover truth. Because of the noetic effects of sin, apologetics is more difficult, but it is not futile.

— Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics

The idea of neutrality is problematic because everyone has a criterion for truth. We agree with presuppositionalists that "Neutrality is a myth!" John Frame, after saying that claiming a position of neutrality is to abandon our biblical presuppositions, remarks:

To claim neutrality is to claim that I am the one who ultimately decides what is true or false, that I am on the intellectual throne. Such neutralist pretensions must be rebuked, not indulged. They are a form of pride, of which God commands the sinner to repent.5

Classical apologists assume the mind is an instrument that can cogitate, survey evidence, and draw proper conclusions. They believe the mind can do this with detachment and neutrality, as a faculty or power, even if the person's heart is hostile to God. The God of providence guides the human mind in every step of the reasoning process.

Classical apologists do not claim to be neutral, nor do they grant inquirers the right to wait until all their questions are answered to their satisfaction.

The apologist faces the evidence and treats it fairly, using arguments as tools in the hand of the Spirit of God.

Arguments for God's Existence

When presenting the cosmological argument, for example, a classical apologist assumes the world bears the mark of its Creator. The point of such an argument is to show that the facts are not neutral and that they testify to the existence of the Creator. Here's Winfried Corduan:

"For example, when I present the cosmological argument, I'm already assuming that the features of the world bear the unmistakable mark of their Creator; otherwise I would not go to the trouble. Of course, as we argued earlier, I cannot use my conclusion as a premise, but my thoughts are deeply embedded in the Christian system, and the whole point of making such an argument is to show that the facts that go into the argument are not neutral. By their very existence they testify to the existence of the Creator. My version, at least, of the cosmological argument is also a transcendental argument: Unless there is a God, there cannot be a world. If you can look at the world and not recognize that it needs a Creator and Sustainer, you're not looking at the world correctly."

— Without Excuse, ch. 6

Even when using reason and logic, the classical apologist is not attempting to create a neutral space where God may or may not exist depending on the outcome of the arguments. Instead, they are trying to demonstrate that a neutral ground is not possible. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the cosmos is not a neutral zone as it bears an "unmistakable mark of their Creator."

Common Ground

Classical apologists recognize that there are propositions on which Christians and non-Christians can agree, even regarding reason, logic, and knowledge. However, they believe that these things are true because the Christian God made them so. Unbelievers may be using "borrowed capital," involuntarily reasoning (and voluntarily as sinful rebels) as a Christian, because their own presuppositions cannot justify any truth claims.

Classical apologists believe that sound human reason can be used to discover truths about God, while (some?) presuppositionalists deny this. They acknowledge the limitations and difficulties faced by both unbelievers and believers alike (because of the noetic effects of sin), but do not consider it impossible in every case. This is not to suggest that unbelievers are epistemologically self-sufficient, for every step of their reasoning is sustained by God's providence, even if they think without reference to Him or actively suppress the truth in rebellion. This only confirms that the knowledge of God revealed in nature is objective and inescapable (Romans 1:19–32).

While classical apologetics employs reason, logic, and evidence, it does so from a position of faith in God's revelation. The goal of apologetics is not to worship an idea of God from a philosophical argument, but rather to provide intellectual support for belief in the God of the Bible and show the unbelievers the inescapable truth about the existence of the True God.

In essence, for the classical apologist, the use of reason and logic is not about establishing a neutral testing ground for God's existence, but about showing how the existing reality and the facts within it already testify to the Creator, making neutrality impossible. Hence, revealed theology is absolutely necessary for one to know the Triune God and the way of salvation.

Though revealed theology considers God as he makes himself known through "divine revelation" to faith, rather than through reason's consideration of God's creaturely effects, and though it considers "certain truths which exceed human reason," revealed theology also addresses truths known to natural theology. This is necessary "because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors" (ST 1a.1.1, 8; Junius 2014, 150). Revealed theology not only perfects the knowledge of God available through natural theology by extending our knowledge beyond natural theology's inherent limitations. Revealed theology also restores the knowledge of God available through natural theology but rendered ineffectual through human finitude and sin.6

There is much to be said about the nature of autonomous reasoning7 and common ground (both ontological and epistemological), but that is worth another blog.

I know that no matter what we say, some may still charge us by banking on a neutral zone or even autonomous, sinful reasoning, but that's throwing sticks on a strawman.

To the Triune God alone be the glory!

Footnotes

  1. Greg Bahnsen speaks of epistemological autonomy. "By epistemological autonomy is meant the ability to attain to knowledge independent of God's revelation and existence. The person who rejects the Word of God feels that he can find truth with his own powers of exploration, examination, and explanation. He thinks that personal knowledge of the world is attainable irrespective of God's existence. For the self-styled autonomous man personal understanding need not make reference to the God-situation in order to justify or explain itself. It is assumed from the outset that the human mind is epistemologically self-sufficient. He purports to start simply with himself, his native abilities, the facts of experience, and the principles of logic in order to establish an interpretation of the world built up without reference to God or divine revelation. He takes it that his thinking is straightforwardly original and relies upon no a priori judgments as to fact." Bahnsen, Greg L. Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, Inc.; Nacogdoches, TX, 2008. p. 96. ↩

  2. Fesko, J.V. Reforming Apologetics. Ebook ed., Baker Academic, 2019. bakerpublishinggroup.com ↩

  3. Sproul, R.C. Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003. crossway.org ↩

  4. Winfried Corduan, "Presuppositions in Presuppositionalism and Classical Theism" in Haines, David. Without Excuse: Scripture, Reason, and Presuppositional Apologetics. Leesburg, Virginia: The Davenant Press, 2020. davenant.org ↩

  5. John M. Frame, "Presuppositional Apologetics" in Cowan, Steven B, et al. Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. ↩

  6. Swain, Scott. "On Divine Naming." Aquinas among the Protestants, edited by Manfred Svensson and David VanDrunen, Wiley-Blackwell, 2018. wiley.com ↩

  7. There is a kind of autonomous reasoning that may be valid and necessary, according to John M. DePoe: "Autonomy is derived from two Greek words: auto, which means 'self,' and nomos, which means 'law' or 'rule.' Hence, the common meaning of autonomy is to be self-ruled or self-governed — to think for oneself, rather than to accept the authority of others to decide what to believe or do. Autonomous reasoning is often associated with the notion of an individual taking personal responsibility for what he believes." John M. DePoe, "The Place of Autonomous Human Reason and Logic in Theology" in Haines, David. Without Excuse: Scripture, Reason, and Presuppositional Apologetics. Leesburg, Virginia: The Davenant Press, 2020. ↩