To understand the core dispute between Presuppositionalism and Classical Realism (or Reformed Thomism), one need only look at the following statement. It serves as a manifesto for the Van Tillian approach to apologetics, rejecting the idea that a Christian and a non-Christian can meet on a "neutral" bridge to debate the existence of God.
The statement reads:
"However, Reformed exegetes of Scripture have clearly shown that the natural man represses the truth of God wherever it comes to him. The natural man is not neutral in his attitude toward any form of the revelation of God. He always gives a principially untrue interpretation of all of God’s revelation. He does this because he hates God. Accordingly, we labor in vain if we present the facts of God’s revelation to him and ask him to admit that, on his own principle, he must admit that they reveal God. We can find no common ground of interpretation with the natural man. He thinks that he knows the facts of the universe in their proper relation to one another without taking God’s revelation in Christ into account. The truth is that only he who sees the facts of the world in the light of God’s redemptive revelation given through Christ, sees them for what they are. We may use our minds as flashlights with which to d..."
What follows is an explication of this quote, utilizing the "Canvas" of the debate between Reformed Classicalists and Presuppositionalists to unpack the theological density of these assertions.
1The Psychology of Suppression
"However, Reformed exegetes of Scripture have clearly shown that the natural man represses the truth of God wherever it comes to him."
The starting point of the Van Tillian method is the Sensus Divinitatis (sense of the divine). The quote immediately attacks the Thomistic assumption that the unbeliever is merely ignorant—a rational observer waiting for new information. Instead, it posits that the natural man is in active suppression.
In the "Elephant in the Room" analogy, the Realist (Thomist) argues that the atheist sees the elephant truly (as a mammal) but simply misses its origin (God). The Van Tillian argues that the atheist sees the elephant and immediately suppresses the truth that it is a "Glory-Reflector" of the Triune God.
This distinction is vital for understanding Common Grace.
The Realist View (Attainment): Common grace allows the unbeliever to attain neutral, valid knowledge of reality despite their lack of faith.
The Van Tillian View (Restraint): Common grace acts as a muzzle. The natural man knows the elephant is God's creature, but he represses this truth to maintain his autonomy. When he correctly identifies the elephant, he is not "attaining" truth via his worldview; he is failing to fully suppress the truth that contradicts his worldview.
The Impossibility of Neutrality
"The natural man is not neutral in his attitude toward any form of the revelation of God. He always gives a principially untrue interpretation of all of God’s revelation. He does this because he hates God."
Here, the quote dismantles the "Demilitarized Zone" of neutrality. The Realist often treats the human mind as a neutral judge and the evidence as neutral testimony. But the Presuppositionalist reminds us of the Eve Paradigm.
In the Garden, Eve did not start with God's word as the ultimate presupposition. She placed God's word and the Serpent's word on a "neutral" table and used her own autonomous judgment to weigh them. By assuming she could judge God, she had already fallen.
Similarly, when we assume the natural man is "neutral," we validate his delusion of Autonomy (self-law). We grant that his mind is the ultimate bar of judgment. The quote clarifies that this is not an intellectual oversight but an ethical hostility. The unbeliever is not a confused witness; he is a Hostile Witness trying to destroy the evidence of the Creator. To treat him as neutral is to hand a corpse a thermometer and ask it to take its own pulse.
The Failure of the "Artifact" Method
"Accordingly, we labor in vain if we present the facts of God’s revelation to him and ask him to admit that, on his own principle, he must admit that they reveal God."
This section serves as a critique of the Artifact Analogy often used by Thomists (the watch on the beach). The Classicalist presents "facts" (the watch/the universe) and asks the atheist to admit they require a Maker, based on the atheist's own principles of causality.
The quote argues this is "labor in vain" because of the distinction between a Brute Fact and a Dependent Fact.
If you ask the atheist to interpret the facts "on his own principle," you are asking him to interpret them as self-contained, autonomous "Brute Facts" that exist solely by chance or natural law.
You cannot start with a premise of Absolute Independence (the fact exists without God) and logically reason to Absolute Dependence (God is necessary for the fact to exist).
This leads to the Quantitative Fallacy (or the Tower of Babel problem). If you argue from the atheist's principle of a finite, closed universe, you can only prove a "Super-Finite" cause—a "god" who is bigger than the universe but part of the same system (like "Bob the Alien"). You cannot prove the Necessary Being (I AM) by starting with facts that are treated as theoretically intelligible without Him.
No Common Ground: The Epistemology of Parasitism
"We can find no common ground of interpretation with the natural man. He thinks that he knows the facts of the universe in their proper relation to one another without taking God’s revelation in Christ into account."
This is the most controversial claim: "No common ground." The Realist objects, saying, "But we both see the same elephant!"
The quote clarifies that while there is a metaphysical common ground (we live in the same world, the "Floor"), there is no epistemological common ground (we interpret the "Floor" differently).
Proximate Agreement: We both call it an "Elephant."
Ultimate Disagreement: The Christian sees a distinct "Word" spoken by God. The Naturalist sees a "Cosmic Accident."
The natural man interprets facts as if they are self-interpreting. He walks on the Floor (God's World) while denying the Beams (God's Decree) that hold it up. He is an Epistemological Parasite. He borrows Christian capital—logic, science, and uniformity—to argue against the very God who makes those things possible. To grant him "common ground of interpretation" is to agree that the Floor floats on nothing—an absurdity that collapses the Christian worldview.
The Light of Christ: The Only True Vision
"The truth is that only he who sees the facts of the world in the light of God’s redemptive revelation given through Christ, sees them for what they are."
Finally, the quote moves from critique to the positive assertion of the Van Tillian method: We must see facts "in the light of" revelation.
Realists accuse this of being Idealism or requiring Omniscience (the "All or Nothing" fallacy). They argue, "Must I know the Trinity to know a cow?" The Van Tillian answers with the Blueprint and the Brick:
A construction worker (man) does not need the Master Blueprint (Omniscience) to know what a brick is.
But, if he denies the Architect, he ceases to see the object as a "brick" (a designed part of a whole) and defines it merely as a "clump of dried clay" (matter in motion).
To see the fact "for what it is," one must acknowledge the context of the Creator. As the quote concludes, we use our minds not as creators of light, but as "flashlights"—receivers and reflectors of the light that God has already poured into the universe. To see the world without Christ is to analyze the shadows while denying the Sun.
Conclusion
The quote posits that the debate is not between two neutral parties observing a passive object. It is a conflict between two opposing worldviews—one that bows to the Creator, and one that suppresses Him. To accept the "neutrality" of the natural man is to validate his suppression. The only way to truly see the elephant, the star, or the atom, is to view them through the lens of the One who spoke them into existence.
Discussion