Each claims that with respect to the problem of evil his position is in accord with conscience.
a. The Christian claims this because he interprets his moral consciousness, an aspect of his total experience, in terms of his presupposition. He knows that the judge of the whole earth must do right. All the facts and problems of evil and sin take their meaning from, and find their solution in, terms of the plan of God according to Scripture. The approvals and disapprovals of his conscience take their meaning from the Word of God and from it alone.
b. The non-Christian claims this because he takes his conscience to be its own ultimate point of reference. Evil has not come into the world because of man’s disobedience; it is metaphysically ultimate, i.e., it just is! Evil cannot, ultimately, be distinguished from good; what is, ought to be. Even assuming that good could be distinguished from evil, there is no right to expect that the one will ever be victorious over the other. If those who think they are good succeed in making what they think is “good” prevail upon earth, it can be only by the suppression of the “good” of others who also think they are “good.” Thus power politics will forever replace all ethical distinctions.
– Cornelius Van Til, The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought.
(Variation in The Defense of the Faith p.305)