The debate over free will and predestination has been around a long time. It is unlikely to disappear in our lifetime.

But . . .

In re-reading (after 32 years) Van Til’s, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, I was reminded of how the idea of predestination fits philosophically and theologically into a larger logical framework.

Presuppositions deal with the “preconditions of intelligibility”. What is it that allows “logic” to drive us to particular conclusions?

There are some who believe that it is wrong to insist on conclusions. This point was hammered home by Martin Luther in his Bondage of the Will. He did not use the word conclusions; he used the word assertions. Erasmus had denied the use of assertions, just as there are some people today who deny the legitimacy of conclusions.

“Take away assertions,” wrote Luther, “and you take away Christianity.” True enough. But Luther’s statement by itself does not explain the philosophy behind the “no assertions” idea. Take away assertions that are true – statements of factuality – and you take away the ability to hold any rational discussion. Period. It’s not just Christianity that falls apart, but so do science, mathematics, history, and any attempt at rational thought.

Underneath this “no conclusions” or “no assertions” idea, however, is a worldview that contradicts itself. Here’s why.

Continue reading →