Van Til sees Christian apologetics as the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life in the face of various forms of non-Christian philosophy of life. It offers us a comprehensive vision of the system of Christian truth and shows how defending the Christian faith requires an integrated understanding of this system. He emphasizes the fact that the Christian faith is an integrated unit, as he means that Christianity and belief in God exist in one another. He noted that it is often said that apologetic theology has to do with belief in God, while proofs have to do with Christianity. Accordingly, it is said that apologetics addresses philosophy, while evidence addresses facts. Van Til testifies that there is some truth in this definition, as apologetic theology actually examines the importance of belief in God more than it examines Christianity, while the evidence is more concerned with what Christianity is than with belief in God.
Hence, the writer emphasizes that the entire issue is not a matter of separation, but of emphasis, and goes back to the fact that the Christian faith is an integrated unit. The nature of Christianity, its beliefs, and belief in God are one thing, not separate from each other, and they cannot be separated while defending Christianity at any time. When we present Christianity, we must adopt this methodology (the methodology of unity), and this is what the writer made clear when he explained how any definition of the work of Christ always includes a certain concept of God.
The doctrine of God will continue to occupy a fundamental position in theology and apologetics, as it is always the starting point for discussion and the first point of attack, as it addresses the important questions in apologetic theology related to the knowledge of God, the existence of God, and the nature of God. Van Til, unlike other theologians, is interested in the nature of the God in whom Christianity believes before the logicality of the existence of this God. The question about its nature precedes the question about its existence. Content precedes meaning. This is also considered one of the methods of apologetics, as it seeks to clarify and explain the nature of this God before answering its existence, and this also includes an integrated unity, as the two questions are linked to each other and are consequent upon each other.
The writer was interested in explaining how the Christian truth is one unity, by explaining how God’s being himself, His knowledge, and His will are also one unity, and since they are one unity, they must be defended in a manner of one unity as well, as Van Til explained that if we actually defend Christianity as a historical religion, we must at the same time defend the belief in God on which Christianity is based. There are two aspects, historical and philosophical, in the defense of the Christian faith and they must remain in constant contact and cannot be separated from each other.
The writer also took care to clarify what is meant by the connection point, which revolves around a set of the following questions:
Is there something that believers in Christ agree with non-believers?
Is there a common area of knowledge between them from which one can proceed to what is known to believers and unknown to non-believers?
Is there a common way to access this “known area” that applies only to what the unbeliever does not know in order to convince him of its existence and validity?
Van Til points out that these questions do not necessarily elicit positive responses. The same person who knows also needs a complete explanation of the things he knows. It is possible to consider one clear point in common, which is the emergence of man.
Christianity, then, should present itself as the light that reveals the truths of human experience and the interpretation of human nature and shows them exactly as they are. Christianity is the source from which life and light come to man. Van Til stresses that the problem with this point of connection is the discrepancy with Catholicism about the starting point. Protestant theology calls for different apologetics than those used by Catholic theology, because of the fundamental difference in understanding human nature and the point of connection between the believer and the non-believer. Van Til asserts that Christianity should present itself as a comprehensive framework for understanding reality and human experience, and not as a mere addition to man’s pre-existing knowledge. Christianity offers a radical interpretation of human nature and reality, and this interpretation is fundamentally different from other interpretations offered by human thought.
Van Til points out that the point of connection between the believer and the non-believer is not the existence of a common neutral epistemological zone, but the fact that both are created in the image of God, and that the non-believer, although he denies it, cannot completely escape this fact, he lives in God’s world and uses God-given abilities, even if he denies it. Hence, the writer emphasizes that Christian apologetics must start from the Christian faith itself, and not from a common ground that includes reality, and not as a mere part of a larger cognitive system. This means that the defense of Christianity must be from within the Christian system itself, and not from outside it.
In fact this understanding of the point of connection has a profound influence on the methodology of Christian apologetics. Rather than trying to prove the validity of Christianity based on supposed external standards, Christianity must show how it alone provides a coherent and comprehensive explanation of reality and human experience. This requires the defender of the Christian faith to understand well the nature of man as presented by Christianity, and not as man himself understands it.
Van Til’s most common concern with both Catholic and Arminian apologetics is that they accept the methodology and starting point of unbelieving man (“the natural man”) in the process of knowledge and demonstration, rather than starting from divine revelation in Scripture as the final point of reference and authority. He believes that both approaches attempt to find “common ground” or “point of agreement” with the non-believer.
Van Til criticizes both Catholicism and Arminianism for assuming the existence of a cognitive area that natural man can access and understand correctly and independently of special revelation in Scripture, giving reason or human nature a degree of autonomy. In addition to giving up the final reference in trying to agree with the natural man at the starting point, meaning giving up the universe and declaring God as the absolute final reference. Catholicism, with its quasi-pagan conception of human nature, and Arminianism, with its belief in the autonomy of human will and the existence of truths outside the control of God, can “come to terms with the unbeliever” on the question of starting point or methodology. While Van Til believes that the reformed apologist cannot agree with the methodology of the natural man, because the natural man makes himself the final authority and this is against God’s intention.
Van Til’s concern for Catholicism and Arminianism also stems from his view that both make dangerous methodological compromises by trying to find common ground with unbelieving man’s thought, and fail to present Christian truths in their entirety because they attempt to adapt the truths to fit the framework of natural man. For Van Til, Christian apologetics must challenge the entire unbeliever’s system of thought from the beginning, presenting the Christian vision of the world as an integrated, interconnected system based solely on God’s revealed authority.