Transcendental Meditation

ARTICLE BY SCOTT OLIPHINT AUGUST 2012

No, not Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (for Derek and more "seasoned" readers).

A question recently came to me from a reader concerning what Cornelius Van Til called the
transcendental method of apologetics. The question was whether or not this method could be explained
in "simple terms." This question obviously comes from an educated and informed reader. Whether or
not it is a question that other readers might have will likely remain a mystery. However, since I
committed to answering questions from readers, I am constrained to respond.

It may surprise many that this aspect of Van Til's apologetic is among the easiest and least technical to
explain (but not, necessarily, to apply). Van Til was quite clear on what he meant by the term
"transcendental." In order to see the validity of the term and concept, however, a little context might be
helpful. Why keep something simple when it can be made complex?

As we have discussed in previous articles, one of the most significant advances during the time of the
Reformation was the affirmation of the central and foundational status of Scripture. The problem was
not that the medieval church had not previously held Scripture in high regard. It was, rather, that the
soteriological implications of what we can know and how we know had not been given their due
theological weight. In other words, prior to the Reformation (generally speaking), it was thought that
man's reason was not so bad after all; what was needed for salvation was a change of heart, not so
much of mind. So, there was thought to be general agreement on what all men could know, and what
could be known was thought to be the same for anyone, Christian or not.

In contrast to this, in Reformed thinking, the depravity of the mind, including unregenerate reason, was
affirmed. There could not be, therefore, a religiously neutral aspect of our human constitution that was
common to both believer and unbeliever. Our thinking, as well as our willing and our doing, were all in
opposition to God (cf. Rom. 8:5-7). Reformed Christians sought to make clear that the "light of natural
reason" could not be the same for all people, regardless of their spiritual status. Where, then, does a
Christian stand in order properly to know, and to think about, the world, himself, etc.? If our reason, in
Adam, is depraved, it is not able to provide the solid foundation that is needed for knowledge of
ourselves and of everything around us.

So, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the status of Scripture was given its proper place; it was
affirmed as principial. This meant, in part, that Scripture's self-attestation was part and parcel of a
Reformed doctrine of Scripture. As self-attesting and principial, Scripture's status - its authority and
attributes - were not, in the first place, something that could or should be logically demonstrated. That
which is foundational, as Scripture was affirmed to be, is itself known immediately and indemonstrably.
In other words, we do not come to Scripture's authority as something that is given (mediately) at the
end of a syllogism. It carries its authority within itself, and testifies, in and of itself, to that authority.

This emphasis on Scripture's status as principial impacted the entirety of theology, and of the church.
One of those impacts included the way in which the so-called "theistic proofs" were understood and
applied. Before the Reformation, because the totality of sin's effects on man were, at least,
underestimated, it was thought that the best way to prove God's existence was by beginning with
commonly held rational or evidential principles. The burden of Christianity, it was thought in this
scenario, was that it had to show itself to be reasonable or sufficiently evidential if it were going to be
deemed fit or rational to believe.

A couple of centuries after the Reformation, and because of the influence of the Enlightenment, the
reasonableness of Christianity was thought to be, not simply an aspect, but a requirement, if someone
was going to pass the (assumed) bar of rationality or evidential sufficiency in believing the Christian
faith. That which could not be rationally or evidentially proven, so it was thought, could not be rationally
held. It was the burden of the Christian, so we were told, to show his beliefs to be rational or
evidentially sound. This Enlightenment emphasis has remained, in some quarters, to the present day.
Many responses, therefore, in light of this obligation of reasonableness, or of evidential sufficiency, have
been attempts to demonstrate that our belief in Scripture's authority, or in the existence of God, meets
the demands of rationality or evidential sufficiency (even though such demands have never been
universally agreed upon, but that's a topic for another time).

When affirming the principial status of Scripture, however, Reformed Christians were also affirming that
something had to be the immediate and indemonstrable ground, the absolute foundation, upon which
everything else could be known or understood (this notion of a principial ground, by the way, was not
invented by the Reformers; it goes back at least to Aristotle). But this kind of foundational affirmation
was not intended to cease all discussion, as if it could only be asserted but never argued. One of the
ways in which one's affirmation of Scripture's immediate ground is argued is by showing what follows
when Scripture is affirmed in this way. Another way is by showing what follows when Scripture is not
affirmed as the foundation. In other words, it is not the case that an affirmation of Scripture as our
principial foundation destroys arguments altogether, leaving us only with a shouting match of principial
foundations. Rather, given this foundational status, arguments can be presented that work through both
the positive benefits of Scripture as foundation, and the negative implications of denying its
foundational status.

For this reason, primarily, during the period of the Reformation, the theistic proofs were wrenched from
their theologically weak medieval context and were transplanted into the Reformed context, in which
the existence of God and the authority of Scripture were affirmed to be the two basic principles of a
Reformed view of theology. Once transplanted, the theistic proofs served more as rhetorical or
persuasive arguments, than as logical demonstrations. To assume that we have to demonstrate such
things, in a Reformed context, was to deny the principial status of God's existence and Scripture's
authority.

"But wait a minute," you rightly protest, "what does this have to do with the original question about
transcendental method?" Much in every way.

If we think of the transcendental method as an approach that is designed to show, as Van Til put it, "the
impossibility of the contrary," we can begin to see how the Reformed affirmation of that which is
immediate and indemonstrable comes to the fore. The word "impossible" in this phrase means, not that
someone cannot hold a contrary position, or that someone cannot attempt to live the position that he
holds. The notion of "impossible" means, in effect, that "the contrary" position cannot be consistently
believed or lived out. By consistency here is meant that the principles and details of the "impossible"
position held cannot hold up under their own weight. That is, the "impossible" position is going to be, in
every case, self-destructive. The word "contrary" in the phrase simply refers to any position that is
contrary to the Christian position.

In other words, and (finally) more simply, the transcendental method, i.e., the impossibility of the
contrary, holds that Christianity is true and anything opposing it is false and, in and of itself, self-
destructive. This should be obvious to any Christian. Christianity is true. We believe that it is true, but it
is true whether we believe it or not. This means also that Christianity is true, even for those who are not
Christians. If it is true for those who are not Christians, and those who are not Christians refuse to
believe it, then, by definition, those who are not Christians believe and live out that which is false.

But "what is true" and "what is false" does not refer simply to propositions or ideas that we hold in our
minds. When we say something is true, we are saying, at least, that it comports with reality. Truth refers
to the way the world, and all things in it, actually are. So also, "what is false" refers to an illusion; it does
not describe or refer to the way the world really is.

"But," you continue to object, "don't people hold some beliefs and know some things that are true?"
This is where it might be useful to see why some who use the term "transcendental" take their cue from
Immanuel Kant. Kant set out to argue, against David Hume (the radical empiricist), that it was, in fact,
proper to affirm the reality of cause and effect. How did Kant do that? He began by affirming that there
was cause and effect. "But wait just another minute," you importunately continue to implore, "you can't
argue that there is cause and effect when you start by affirming that there is cause and effect." But this
objection assumes that everything that we hold to be rational must first be demonstrated. To hold that,
however, is self-refuting; it cannot rationally or evidentially demonstrate its own criterion.

What Kant understood in his argument against Hume is that if you begin with the reality of cause and
effect in order to show that reality, you must ask the question as to the pre-conditions for a proper
understanding of cause and effect. In other words, Kant's question was something like this, "Given cause
and effect, what are the presuppositions behind that fact, and which make it possible?"

The reality of cause and effect, therefore, can be shown (not that Kant was successful in his attempt) if
one is able to get to the foundations of that which makes cause and effect possible. Cause and effect,
Kant understood from Hume, cannot be demonstrated on an empirical basis. The only way to establish
its validity is by exposing universally valid presuppositions that alone can justify our affirmation of it.

As an "impossibility of the contrary" argument, therefore, a Covenantal, Reformed apologetic will be
intent to argue, not in terms of the standard notion of proofs, but in terms of rhetorical argument, or
persuasion, as its primary mode of discussion. Or, as we said above, with Scripture as the principial
foundation for all that we know, the standard proofs, if utilized, take on the character of persuasive
arguments, based on Scripture, and not of syllogistic demonstrations.

Now, moving past the more technical, the simple truth that the term "transcendental" communicates is
that Christianity alone is true. Whenever we meet up with some position, theory, idea or concept that is
opposed to Christianity, we need not be experts in those ideas; all we need to know, initially, is that if it
is a non-Christian position, it is, by definition, false. It has the seeds of self-destruction within itself.
Patient probing will often times uncover those seeds. Once uncovered, it is important to replace them
with the imperishable seed of the Word of God (Luke 8:11; 1 Peter 1:23), which alone will not, because
it cannot, self-destruct.

On a more parochial note, I don't think the term "transcendental" in Van Til's own writing, is as central
as is sometimes thought. He used the term early on in his career, dropped it for decades, and only
picked it up again at the end of his career when he needed to respond to Herman Dooyeweerd (for
whom the notion of transcendental was central). The concept behind the term is central in Van Til, but
the term itself is just one (technical and philosophical) way to express the fact that Christianity is true,
and that a proper way to that truth was by probing the presuppositions that were attached to any and
every position. In that way, the concern moves from the method of strict proofs, to the assumptions and
ideas that are behind any and every proof. The move, then, is from proofs per se, to persuasion. More
on this, perhaps, in later articles.


What the Hijabi Witnessed (and What She Didn't)
Article by Carl Trueman
AUGUST 2013
Making Faces
Article by Scott Oliphint
AUGUST 2013
The Lost Work of Pastoral Visitation
Article by Joseph A. Pipa, Jr.
AUGUST 2013

Migrations of the Holy
The Lion's World
Trent: What Happened at the Council
Night of the Confessor
Engaging with Keller
How the West Really Lost God
iPod, YouTube, Wii Play
What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense
Half-Devil, Half-Child - A Summary
God So Loved, He Gave

What John the Baptist Teaches us About the Gospel
Preaching through John's gospel, I have paused to meditate upon the person and work of John the
Baptist. Here was one who came as a "witness, to bear witness about the Light" (Jn 1:6). Consistently
(1:7, 14, 20) we are told that the Baptist was not the Light but a witness to the Light.
by Matthew Holst
Doubting on Your Part Does Not Constitute a Crisis of Faith on Mine
One of the amusing things I have noticed in the last twelve months or so has been a shift in the rhetoric
used by members of the older generation (40 plus) surrounding what twenty- and thirty-somethings will
believe. Five years...
by Carl Trueman
More Counterpoints

August 2013 (7)
July 2013 (9)
June 2013 (7)
May 2013 (9)
April 2013 (9)
March 2013 (4)
February 2013 (5)
January 2013 (5)
December 2012 (8)
November 2012 (7)
October 2012 (7)
September 2012 (5)
August 2012 (5)
July 2012 (6)
June 2012 (8)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (8)
March 2012 (7)
February 2012 (7)
January 2012 (7)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (5)
October 2011 (4)
September 2011 (4)
August 2011 (1)
July 2011 (3)
June 2011 (3)
May 2011 (4)
April 2011 (6)
March 2011 (6)
February 2011 (4)
January 2011 (4)
December 2010 (8)
November 2010 (4)
October 2010 (2)
September 2010 (4)
August 2010 (2)
July 2010 (1)
June 2010 (5)
May 2010 (4)
April 2010 (5)
March 2010 (6)
February 2010 (1)
January 2010 (4)
December 2009 (6)
November 2009 (6)
October 2009 (4)
September 2009 (2)
August 2009 (5)
July 2009 (7)
June 2009 (10)
May 2009 (5)
April 2009 (1)
March 2009 (6)
February 2009 (5)
January 2009 (3)
December 2008 (8)
November 2008 (6)
October 2008 (10)
September 2008 (4)
August 2008 (6)
July 2008 (6)
June 2008 (8)
May 2008 (7)
April 2008 (11)
March 2008 (4)
February 2008 (1)
January 2008 (11)
December 2007 (3)
October 2007 (3)
September 2007 (5)
August 2007 (6)
July 2007 (5)
June 2007 (5)
May 2007 (4)
April 2007 (7)
March 2007 (6)
February 2007 (6)
January 2007 (8)
December 2006 (7)
November 2006 (7)
October 2006 (9)
September 2006 (8)
August 2006 (4)
July 2006 (9)
June 2006 (14)
May 2006 (8)
April 2006 (9)
March 2006 (2)
February 2006 (7)
January 2006 (4)
December 2005 (7)
November 2005 (6)
October 2005 (5)
September 2005 (6)
August 2005 (7)
July 2005 (6)

Recent Articles
What the Hijabi Witnessed (and What She Didn't)
Making Faces
The Lost Work of Pastoral Visitation
Pastoral Visitation: The God-Given Responsibility to Shepherd
Loving God AND Your Country?
An Important but Neglected Distinction
Of Adamites and Aromas
Vatican Files no. 22
The Myth of Persecution
The Bridge of Persuasion
Recent Reviews
Migrations of the Holy
The Lion's World
Trent: What Happened at the Council
Night of the Confessor
Engaging with Keller
How the West Really Lost God
iPod, YouTube, Wii Play
What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense
Half-Devil, Half-Child - A Summary
God So Loved, He Gave
Recent Blog Posts
Coming soon to a town near you...
Preparing for the pulpit
Praying for the Syrian Church
One for the Hall of Fame
A Welcome Reprint
God in their thoughts
Atheism from a Recliner
Real millionaire preachers?
Chapter 32
No Gag Order

We exist to call the Church, amidst a dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess
the truth of Gods Word as did the reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship, and
life.

What Is the Alliance?
How to Support
How to Contact
Featured Resource

The Church:
God's New Society CDs
PCRT 1985


Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc. 2005-2011 | Privacy Policy | 800.956.2644 | Frequently
Asked Questions | Login