It’s quite common to find the following objections made – just check out who is answering them as well as giving them for consideration.
What has been said up to this point may seem to be discouraging in the extreme. It would seem that the argument up to this point has driven us to a denial of any point of contact whatsoever with the unbeliever. Is it not true that men must have some contact with the truth if they are to receive further knowledge of it? If men are totally ignorant of the truth, how can they even become interested in it? If men are totally blind, why display before them the colors of the spectrum? If they are deaf, why take them to the academy of music?
Moreover, is not reason itself a gift of God? And does not the scientist, though not a Christian, know much about the universe? Does one need to be a Christian to know that two times two are four? And besides all this, does Christianity, while telling us of much that is above reason, require of us to accept anything that is against reason? Our answer to this type of query is that it is precisely in the Reformed conception of the point of contact, and in it alone, that the historically so-famous dilemma about the wholly ignorant, or the wholly omniscient, can be avoided.
- Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, pgs 109-110↩