Greg Bahnsen wrote…
As Van Til observes: “The natural man then assumes that he has the final criterion of truth within himself. Every form of authority that comes to him must justify itself by standards inherent in man and operative apart from the authority that speaks.”[1] Elsewhere he had noted that “If we must determine the foundations of the authority, we no longer accept authority on authority.”[2] This is just to say that God cannot be permitted by the unbeliever to be and to speak as God – to be the ultimate and self-authenticating authority. Such a position and privilege will be assigned by the unbeliever to something else, something which is part of the creation (such as man’s reasoning, experience) and thus is implicitly treated as an idol. “They worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).
The bottom line then, is that to criticize the Christian’s irrational “faith” is itself nothing more than to express a different religious faith – a faith which in one way or another adopts the ultimate authority and self-sufficiency of the human mind and reasoning. That is irrational “faith” indeed, given the sad experience and history of mankind – as well as the unresolved, rational tensions within autonomous science and philosophy.
I agree with Bahnsen. The starting place of apologetics is to establish the standard of authority, but nonbelievers have a very inconsistent understanding of authority. So, if a skeptic will not concede that there is such a thing as ultimate authority then there is no reason to go any further in apologetics — because there would be no real basis upon which the conversation could possibly continue.
If the skeptic does finally admit that there must be a consistent definition of authority then you can use that definition (whatever it is) to expose the skeptics own religion — which could be anything from Humanism to some form of New Age-ism.
[1] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), pp. 145.
[2] Ibid, p. 49.
(go here to read more of Bahnsen’s thoughts on this subject)