We gather around the table in Wimberley, Texas to discuss the authority of the self-contained Triune God of Scripture. The absolute, self-sufficient God nevertheless established a covenant with man by an act of special providence. In that act, the authority of God’s word is diplayed—entirely independently of man’s response. Whether Adam obeyed or disobeyed, God’s infallible word would be proved.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Lane G. Tipton

David Owen Filson joins us to speak about Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, theologian and former president of Wheaton College and Covenant College and Seminary. Buswell was involved with the early modernist-fundamentalist controversy and the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, though he joined the Bible Presbyterian Church when it split with the fledgling OPC over premillennialism and teetotalism. He continued to be an interlocutor with members of the OPC and faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Interestingly, he coined the term “presuppositionalism” while debating with Cornelius Van Til over apologetic and theological method. Dr. Filson is teaching pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tennessee. He previously spoke on the subject in episode 316, January 17, 2014.

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Filson, Jeff Waddington

The proper goal of every apologist is not to win arguments or build a reputation, but to glorify God through the faithful defense (ἀπολογία) of Christ. Our Lord doesn’t need anyone to defend him, but he gives us that privilege (1 Pet. 3:15). Apologists must seize that great privilege in a manner that glorifies the one whom they defend. Christian apologists share the truth of Jesus Christ with an unbelieving world in the hope that they will call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. This is how apologetics and evangelism are linked, and neither the apologist nor the evangelist should misunderstand their duty. Not every person will be saved. Faith is a gift of God and rests in the sovereign will of the Lord. It’s liberating to know this, because it means that neither the apologist nor the evangelist have the power to regenerate. Their burden is to be faithful. This is why apologetic method matters. Christians may sometimes become preoccupied with the content of the message and not consider how it is delivered or the foundation upon which it is laid. Both matter significantly. Not only does it matter what you say but also how you say it. It undercuts the apologists defense if she speaks out of anger. No matter how cogent the defense, it will be rejected. Christians are called to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Van Til was fond of saying that we should be suaviter in modo, fortiter in re—roughly translated, “smooth in method, strong in the thing.” Don’t compromise the truth for the sake of palatability. But also don’t beat people over the head in order to “win” an argument. Love them with the truth. Sacrificing love will kill an apologetic but so will basing the “content” of the defense upon a poor foundation. This error is much more subtle. Many apologists appeal to the so-called neutral facts of science and history, presenting the truth of the resurrection to ostensibly neutral judges. They may also enlist the help of credentialed historians or scientists to add esteem to their case. But Christ not only lays claim to the facts of Jesus’s resurrection, for example, but also to the idea of a fact itself. Christians are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), and therefore, the faithful apologist cannot deliver Christian building blocks hoping his conversation partner will build with them properly. He must give the building blocks and show how and where to build according to God’s blueprint. The world does not define the rules of engagement; Christ does. Don’t fall prey to its terms. If the world gives you faulty categories, reject them in favor of Christ and his kingdom. The wise man built his house on the rock (Matt. 7:24–27). Let us make sure that we’re building upon the only true foundation that has been laid, which is Christ himself (1 Cor. 3:10ff).

In 2006, I had been attending a non-denominational evangelical church largely influenced by John MacArthur and the Master’s Seminary. The church placed a heavy emphasis on the inerrancy of the Scriptures through expository preaching and taught a Calvinistic soteriology. Yet the church also held to a dispensational hermeneutic and eschatology, which was a challenge for me as I was becoming increasingly and confessionally Reformed. I was planning to move to Philadelphia to attend Westminster Theological Seminary in the summer of 2007. I already had taken a couple distance courses but until I moved, I was largely feeding on Westminster’s pre-seminary reading list and resources from Ligonier Ministries. As so many others, I greatly admired Dr. R. C. Sproul. He was such a clear and convincing teacher who led me to a fuller understanding of the Scriptures and the system of doctrine contained therein. I was profoundly influenced by his wonderful book, The Holiness of God, which I continue to commend to people who struggle to accept the biblical doctrines of grace. For many, their reticence stems from a deficient doctrine of human sin and God’s holiness. Dr. Sproul presents our total depravity and great need of a holiness that can only come from Christ. In 2006 I had the opportunity to attend a Ligonier National Conference near Orlando, Florida with my wife. While I previously attended a regional conference in St. Louis, this was a much bigger deal to me. I was elated to see Dr. Sproul teach along with John Piper, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and others on the theme of apologetics. I would even line up before the volunteers would open the doors just to make sure I could get a seat near the front. This is Reformed nerddom. During the conference it was announced that R. C. Sproul would be signing books. You could head over to the bookstore, get in line, and he’d sign something for you. I’m always a sucker for reformed books, and while I was already a committed Van Tilian, I did not yet own a copy of Classical Apologetics, the book Dr. Sproul wrote along with John Gerstner as a criticism of presuppositional apologetics. I figured this was the book for Dr. Sproul to sign. I waited in line, watching Dr. Sproul sign books, sharing pleasantries, listened to person after person tell of his influence in their lives. It was a reminder to me of how profoundly the Lord had used this servant for the benefit of his Church. Like the many before me, I wanted a few moments to express my thanks to Dr. Sproul. When it was my turn, I said, “hello” and expressed my gratitude. I also handed him my new copy of Classical Apologetics. Without looking up, he asked me to whom he should inscribe it. Maybe I was being too clever or brash, but I simply didn’t want to have him sign it with my name in a book he may have thought I just happened to grab. I wanted to let the good doctor know I was somewhat conversant with the issues addressed in the book. So I asked him to inscribe it “to a true Van Tilian.” This threw him off of his rhythm. Seated, he paused and looked up at me with a multifarious expression part bewilderment, part amusement, and part annoyance. I explained to him briefly my apologetic commitments and the fact that my friends would think this was funny. He indulged me and began to sign the book—though he did so with an expressive growl. If you’ve listened to Dr. Sproul teach at all, you’ll already know that his lower register can reverberate with great conviction. It is one of the many reasons he is such an effective teacher. This was different. This rumble was a guttural expression of theological and apologetic fervor, a proleptic roar. It was certainly delivered in a spirit of Christian love and charity, though it was clear he wasn’t giving an inch. This was neither the time nor the place, but he was willing to engage. I’ve witnessed Dr. Sproul speak several times, the last of which was when Westminster awarded him an honorary doctorate. As special as was that occasion, I’ll never forget the moment in Orlando. The book sits on my shelf, and whenever I discuss classical apologetics, I remember that encounter. I’ll miss Dr. Sproul and I’m thankful that I’ll see him again in glory. Perhaps then I will have the opportunity to growl back in the Lord.

Jim Cassidy and Camden Bucey preview our 2016 Theology Conference in Austin, Texas with a conversation on nature and grace. Christians have proposed many different theologies regarding relationship of God’s creation to his Word and supernatural works. Those formulations have great implications for many other areas of theology. Listen as we gear up for another great event.

Links

• “Nature and Scripture” — Christ the Center, episode 240 with K. Scott Oliphint
• “Nature/Grace Dualism” — Christ the Center, episode 244 with Lane G. Tipton
• “God in Mathematics” a transcript of a conversation between Jerry Bowyer and Vern Poythress in Forbes.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy

Looking forward to the Covenantal Apologetics Colloquium, I thought I might share some reflections on the uniqueness of Covenantal Apologetics (CA) and, in that sense, on what makes it worthy of special attention. I won’t here offer a detailed definition of CA, since this is done elsewhere (see especially Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics), nor a technical comparison with other methods, since I’m not out to bore readers nor to appeal to the lowest possible number of them. But even without the technical detail, much can be said about the general ethos of CA toward distinguishing it from other ways of thinking about the defense of the faith. So that’s what I aim for here, to answer in broad strokes this question: what is covenantal apologetics all about? You might say that covenantal apologetics is distinguishable from other approaches to apologetics first of all because it bothers to distinguish itself from other approaches. Put it this way: CA is, more than any other approach to apologetics, methodologically self-conscious, so much so that it may frequently be found busy with questions related to the very nature and possibility of apologetics—an undertaking one might judge apologetically uninteresting, even a waste of time. But CA seeks in all things, in apologetics, too, to be self-consciously under the authority of the Word of God. Consistent with the Reformed spirit, with the ongoing sanctification of the believer and the purification of the church until the Lord’s return, CA is actively concerned with the theological purity of the apologetic endeavor, with faithfulness to the Christ of the Scriptures in all aspects of Christian encounter with unbelief and the suppression of the truth, even where that means self-scrutiny. This is because CA believes that apologetics—the defense or vindication of the faith—is the duty of every Christian. It is a Christian duty. Christians are called not simply to confess Christ, but to proclaim the full counsel of God, to give reasons for our hope, to take every thought captive, to watch our doctrine and mind our witness. But apologetics is not an arbitrary command; it is implied even in the redemptive nature of Christian truth, interrupting as it were a world captive to the truth-suppressing industries of idolatrous image-bearers. CA is built on the conviction that apologetics, if we think especially of that notion of theologico-methodological self-scrutiny, ought to flavor the whole of the theological encyclopedia. Every discipline may be energized and sharpened by apologetic readiness. Perhaps this is nothing more than the common historical observation that doctrine takes shape in the heat of conflict. But the ethos of CA adds at least this: the clarification and articulation of the authoritative teaching of Scripture in the heightened intensity of conflict is our business so long as there is opposition to be opposed, and opposition there will be until the end. In that sense apologetic awareness throughout the church’s theological apparatus is a much needed service to the body of Christ and to her witness to the world until Christ’s return. It is part of already-not-yet stewardship. Paul writes that Jesus himself gave to the church leaders for the equipping of the saints, “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph 4:12-14). Apologetics is the duty of individual Christians, and of the church, for her own safeguarding and for her witness to the nations. CA considers Christian truth as a unit, such that every doctrine relates to every other, and all doctrines stand in equal relationships to their center: the one, true, tri-personal God, creator and lord of all. In that sense CA views apologetics as the sharpening of the full counsel of God, as in a sense delivering systematic theology, as the concerted testimony of the canonical Scriptures, to and for the church in the present age. Many thanks to Reformed Forum for sponsoring the Covenantal Apologetics Colloquium. For further information, post questions in the comment section below (or here), or contact RF via email.

Brian DeJong takes us to Jesus Christ as Lord as well as the preeminent practitioner of apologetics. Listen to this important conversation on an underdeveloped topic. Rev. De Jong is pastor of Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Sheboygan, Wisconsin and currently serves as the chairman of the Candidates and Credentials Committee for the OPC’s Presbytery of the Midwest. His article, “Lord Defender: Jesus Christ as Apologist,” published in Ordained Servant, is an excellent treatment of Jesus’ apologetic example and an important call-to-action that Reformed apologists would devote time and attention to studying this topic.

Participants: Brian De Jong, Camden Bucey, Carlton Wynne

Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, and Bob Tarullo tackle listeners’ questions this week, concerning redemptive-historical hermeneutics and preaching as well as apologetic arguments. Please send in your own questions which we can address in a later episode! Our last Listener Feedback episode was Christ the Center episode 317.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Robert Tarullo

David Owen Filson speaks about Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, theologian and former president of Wheaton College and Covenant College and Seminary. A fundamentalist involved with J. Gresham Machen in the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Buswell joined the Bible Presbyterian Church when it split with the fledgling OPC over premilennialism and teetotalism. He continued to be an interlocutor with members of the OPC and faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, eventually locking heads with Cornelius Van Til over apologetic and theological method. David has recently researched the correspondence between the two men in the archives of Covenant and Westminster (PA) seminaries.

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Filson, Jeff Waddington

Dr. Scott Oliphint returns to Christ the Center to discuss his recent book, Covenantal Apologetics. Oliphint’s forthcoming book is an accessible treatment of Van Tilian presuppositional apologetics, the fruit of years of teaching apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA. We discuss with Dr. Oliphint the significance of the book’s title, namely, that the covenantal theology of the Reformed confessions underlies a covenantal apologetic approach. Oliphint explains the “quicksand quotient,” the role of common grace in apologetics, and discusses the motivation behind the example apologetic conversations found in the book.

Other Books on Apologetics

This selection is taken from our suggested reading list. For more information on how to use this list as well as books in other disciplines, please look at our list. Level 1

• Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.
• Oliphint, K. Scott. The Battle Belongs to the Lord. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2003.
• Pratt, Richard. Every Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth. Phillipsburg N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1979.
• Bahnsen, Greg L. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. Covenant Media Press, 1996.

Level 2

• Van Til, Cornelius and Greg L. Bahnsen, ed. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. P&R Publishing, 1998.
• Van Til, Cornelius with annotations by K. Scott Oliphint. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2008.
• Oliphint, K. Scott, and Lane G. Tipton, (eds.) Revelation and Reason. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2007.
• Bahnsen, Greg. Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Powder Springs Ga.; Nacogdoches Tex.: American Vision Inc.; Covenant Media Press, 2008.

Level 3

• Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2006.

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Filson, K. Scott Oliphint

In my recent radio discussion with a couple of “Natural Theology” apologetes, I was able to give some verbal snippets of how one who holds to Reformed theology would think about a Reformed defense of Christianity, a method that I have called Covenantal Apologetics (also called presuppositional apologetics). One of the tensions in doing an interview like this resides in the medium itself; it has its own (sometimes severe) limitations. This is not a criticism; media presentations of this sort can be very useful. But there are times when the limitations of the medium move a complex discussion deeper into the darkness of the tunnel and thus never have the advantage of seeing the light at its end. I would like to provide what I hope is a little more light on that discussion, flickers of which could have been seen in the program, but which was quickly snuffed out by the pressures of time and topic. First and foremost, a point that cannot be overstated, a Covenantal Apologetic is only as consistent as the theology that drives it. Since the theology that drives it is that which was restored and made prominent at the time of the Reformation, any inconsistency that might attach to the apologetic has its genesis in its theology. The “problem” with Reformed theology, though, is not its inconsistency; the reason it grates like fingernails on a chalkboard is that it totally strips away all presumed independence from man, and, by nature, we hate that. So, the “problem” of Reformed theology is its consistency, in that it will not allow for one iota of independence for man. It may be that those who hold to a less-than-Reformed theology (and there really are only two categories) will use identical or similar words, even adopt a ploy or two from a Reformed approach. But, inevitably, in such use and adoption, the words and ploys necessarily take on an entirely different meaning. The (theological) context here is all-important. Whatever formal similarities there might be in the two theologies/apologetic methodology, are formal only; the matter changes the game entirely. So, to the extent that a Covenantal Apologetic conforms to its theological roots, it is consistent, and that consistency is measured by Holy Scripture. Which brings me to my second point. Consistency, rationality, and all such concepts have to be measured by the standard of Scripture, and not, in the first place, by what man’s mind can grasp or calculate. So, in Reformed theology, we hold that what binds man to his sin is his recalcitrant, intractable, obstreperous will. Man simply will not bow his knee to his Creator and Redeemer (Matt. 23:37). But, neither is he able to do so (Rom. 8:7). He cannot because he will not because he cannot because… Jesus was clear that no one (which means “no one”) can (which means “can”) come to me (which means “be saved”) unless (which means, a prior and necessary condition) the Father draws him (which means, the Father must act) (John 6:44, 65). But then, He says to the crowds, “Come to me all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Is this inconsistency in the Lord of glory Himself? Is He saying no one is able, then speaking to people as if they are able? Did Jesus not realize that those who were dead in trespasses and sins could not understand His call? Was He saying that unbelievers could not come to Him, and then calling them to come to Him? To use another example, was Jesus foolish, not to mention inconsistent, to call out to Lazarus who was dead and rotten in the tomb? For the Reformed, those who will not because they cannot because they will not come to Christ, are to be approached with the truth of God, with the gospel of God, so that with this truth and mandate, the Spirit of God might do His sovereign work in their hearts (Is. 55:11). That means that apologetics must communicate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It will not do, then, as I said in one of my verbal snippets, to present the resurrection as probably true. The main reason for that is because it is false that it is probably true, and people still haven’t figured out how to communicate the truth when what they say is false. I’m sure there’s a philosopher somewhere working on that one. But the two don’t seem to merge together very well. Not only is it false that the resurrection is probably true, any probability argument of this nature requires that one stand on ground other than the ground of biblical truth in order to assert the probability. And any other ground than biblical truth is nothing more than sinking sand. For example, granting that the notion of epistemic probability is difficult to pin down, let’s assume a probability calculus such that P_T(R/E & K) > .5. That is, the probability, for person “T,” of the resurrection, “R,” given the evidence, “E,” and “T’s” background knowledge “K,” is greater than .5. Without working through the complexities of this standard calculus, it should be obvious that once “T’s” background knowledge is entailed in the calculus (which it must be), one man’s probable resurrection is another man’s absurdity. There’s just no objective and “scientific” way, by definition, to incorporate background knowledge; it is always and everywhere dependent on the subject. In other words, two people in a discussion of this sort would have to assume the same background knowledge in order to reach the same conclusion. Unfortunately for the probabilist, the unbeliever’s background knowledge is necessarily skewed toward the decided improbability of anything Christian. Thirdly and finally, the Bible doesn’t spend much time on what, exactly, one who is dead in trespasses and sins can “understand” or “grasp” with his depraved mind. Such abstractions don’t appear to be very useful. It does spend much time on the content and necessity of calling dead sinners to repentance, even as Christ Himself does, and as the apostle Paul spends time reasoning with the Jews in the synagogue and (in Acts 17) with others in the marketplace. But that reasoning, as Paul’s address at Athens shows, consists of a “reminder” of what they already know—a reminder of God and His character, a declaration of the certainty and reality of the resurrection of Christ as “proof” of who God is and what He has done, and a call to repent and believe. Does Paul’s address assume that his listeners are anything but dead in trespasses and sins? Only if Paul is inconsistent with himself (and I think we can say with confidence that inconsistency was not Paul’s thorn in the flesh) (cf. Eph. 2:1). So, in the end, a Reformed Christian is required to be a Reformed apologist. Other theologies can find their own apologetic methodology, but, whatever the method, it will be as inconsistent with Scripture as is their theology. The initial point to address, therefore, is not the methodological one, but is the theological and biblical point. And no matter how much man wants to scream his and his posterity’s autonomy, those screams can never be louder than the glorious global gospel shout from heaven, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” When all is said and done, the truth of God, including the good news of the gospel of Christ, can only be grasped and owned when the Spirit of God takes the truth presented and changes a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. On either side of the covenantal divide, whether in Adam or in Christ, however, the gospel of God remains, and always will be, “Unbelievable!”

Reformed theologians have approached the discipline of apologetics from several different vantage points. Proponents of presuppositional, classical, and evidential approaches differ with one another on several important apologetic questions. One primary subject is the nature and proper use of evidences. Should the apologist use historical arguments for the creation, the truthfulness of Scriptures, the resurrection? If so, what role do those evidences play in an apologetic exchange? Dr. Scott Oliphint recently spoke about apologetics on the Unbelievable? program with Justin Brierley to dialogue with Kurt Jaros about apologetic methodology. The conversation touched upon several different apologetic topics, but perhaps the most interesting exchange focused on the use of evidences. It is often assumed that Van Tilian presuppositional apologists eschew the use of evidences. On this episode of Christ the Center, the panel addresses this common assumption. They demonstrate how a covenantal approach to apologetics not only allows the apologist to use evidence, but also provides the only proper context in which they may be used.

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Filson, Jared Oliphint, Jim Cassidy

Jonathan Brack reviews Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective by Ted Turnau, a book on apologetics in the midst of pop culture.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jonathan Brack

Many Christians are disconcerted when they see Christian apologists polemicize against each other. Is it not the job of the Christian apologist to defend Christianity to the unbeliever? Why waste time and energy and even create division among Christians by going after fellow Christian apologists who differ from you in method? Are we not doing the cause of Christian apologetics harm when we fight among each other? There is some validity amidst such concerns. As one who has more than a few polemical bones in his body, I confess that I have often struggled with how I perceive and subsequently how I engage other Christians I disagree with, not just on apologetics but on all manner of theological topics. It is all too easy to begin to see those you disagree with as enemies in need of vanquishing rather than as brothers or sisters in Christ in need of loving correction. But as hard as it may be to carry out polemics in a spirit of Christian love, we cannot assume that a spirit of Christian love prohibits polemics. The characteristic wisdom of Proverbs ought to shape our thinking here: “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid” (Prov. 12:1 ESV). Love and reproof are of a piece in Scripture. Granted, reproof can easily be doled out without love. But, if we are tempered by a spirit of Christ-like love, then we ought not be overly reluctant in opening our mouths to issue words of correction when we are convicted that our brothers or sisters need them. This does not make us the cold-hearted orthodoxy police, but the body of Christ committed to guarding one another from harmful error in a demeanor of love and the Spirit of love. We easily recognize this in the general fabric of the Christian life. It is no less true in the common task of Christian apologetics. If done in love, it will only sharpen the cause of the defense of the faith. With this in mind it is worth revisiting the criticisms that Cornelius Van Til made of another titan of Reformed apologetics, Francis Schaeffer. First, I want to revisit some of those criticisms since they are a helpful guard against a perennial temptation that is all too easy to fall into when engaging in apologetic discussions. Second, I want to end this discussion with a reminder of the spirit of loving correction with which Van Til himself understood his criticisms to be made.

The Critique

Van Til’s criticism of Schaeffer is much the same as Van Til’s criticisms of most every Christian apologist he critiques. It is that Schaeffer refuses to be immediately Christian in his discussion of epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical first principles. Schaeffer instead speaks of the necessity of “pre-Evangelism.”^[1] What Schaeffer means by this is getting the non-believer to reckon first with the truth of the external world before confronting him with the truth claims of Scripture. Schaeffer uses the metaphor of a roof to get at how each person has constructed protective barriers of denial in order to allow him to be shielded from the tension of the logical conclusion of their presuppositions and the real world that confronts him. The task of “pre-evangelism” for the apologist is removing that roof. “The Christian, lovingly, must remove the shelter and allow the truth of the external world and of what man is, to beat upon him. When the roof is off, each man must stand naked and wounded before the truth of what is.”^[2] This seems well and good so far to the apologist who has been shaped by Van Til’s insights. It may seem like Schaeffer is saying that what we need to do is engage in the internal critique of unbelief and deconstruct the façade of the autonomous worldview with the claims of a Biblically consistent Christianity. But that is not quite what Schaeffer is saying. He continues:

The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures, but the truth of the external world and the truth of what man himself is. This is what shows him his need. The Scriptures then show him the real nature of his lostness and the answer to it. This, I am convinced, is the true order for our apologetics in the second half of the twentieth century for people ling under the line of despair.^[3]

Schaeffer’s method is a two-step approach to apologetics. The first step is, I believe, what Schaeffer would call “pre-evangelism.” We need to be careful here. For Schaeffer, it is not a classical natural theology in which the apologist argues for the existence of some generic god by use of some form of the traditional theistic proofs. Rather, for Schaeffer, pre-evangelism is much more existential in nature. It is getting man to feel the full weight of his despair before the “external world.”

Hence we begin to deal with “modern man” by preaching at the place where he can understand. Often he understands the horrible point of meaninglessness. Often he recognizes the tension between the real world and the logic of his presuppositions. Often he appreciates the horror of being dead and yet still alive.^[4]

Schaeffer himself describes this method as similar to a Lutheran law/gospel paradigm.^[5] Man is shown his deadness and hopelessness first, and then and only then is the solution from Scripture presented to him. But, the big difference even between the Lutheran law/gospel method and Schaeffer’s two-step approach is that the “law” which Schaeffer presents is not straight away informed by Scripture. It is an existentialized “law,” not a law which drives one to despair because of God’s holiness but a law that drives one to despair because of one’s existential misery. One does not need Moses for this; one only needs Sartre. What makes it pre-evangelism is that the evangel is not allowed to speak immediately. It must stand in line behind the exposure to Schaeffer’s existentialized law. Another line of pre-evangelism in Schaeffer comes in Schaeffer’s attempts to take the modern relativist and first turn him into a modern objectivist, before turning him into a Christian. “The invitation to act comes only after an adequate basis of knowledge has been given.”^[6] “We are concerned, at this point, not with the content of truth so much as with the concept of what truth is.”^[7] Granted, Schaeffer does frame his concept of truth ultimately by “the God who is there.” “The Bible, the historic Creeds, and orthodoxy are important because God is there, and, finally, that is the only reason they have their importance.”^[8] This last statement is entirely in line with the convictions of Reformed orthodoxy. The basis for Scripture functioning as our principium cognoscendi for our knowledge of God and His world is God’s own being and knowledge of himself as the principium essendi.^[9] But, Schaeffer’s problem is that Scripture as our principium cognoscendi is only secondarily related to man in the apologetic discussion. In his defense of rationality one often gets the impression that he is arguing for an objectivism that stands on its own first irrespective of any relation to the Triune God and the Gospel.^[10] It is an attempt to lay first the foundation of philosophical objectivism and then only afterwards to construct the edifice of Christianity upon it. Hence he grants,

But the Jewish and biblical concept of truth is much closer to the Greek than to the modern, in the sense that it does not deny that which is a part of the ‘manishness’ of man—the longing for rationality, that which can be reasonably thought about and discussed in terms of antithesis.^[11]

Schaeffer makes the mistake that so many Christian thinkers are tempted to drift towards in our post-modern climate: to think that somehow the philosophical world before Kant was a safer haven for Biblical Christianity. Against this tendency Van Til levies a cutting criticism against Schaeffer which is worth quoting at length.

It is, to be sure, only in modern times, particularly since Immanuel Kant, that the purely dialectical nature of apostate thinking has revealed itself clearly. But Greek philosophy was based upon the same assumptions as is modern philosophy. There is no “classical view of truth” that is basically any better or any worse than the philosophy of 20^th century man. There is and can be no descent into idolatry that is or can be any deeper than the descent of worshiping the creature more than the Creator. There are no “degrees of apostasy and error” here. Classical non-Christian thinking was as truly relativist as is that of the pragmatism, existentialism, empiricism, or analyticism of our day. There are, no doubt degrees of violence as well as variations in form in which the basic principle of apostasy expresses itself. But the best-dressed and best-mannered suburbanite of whatever time is no more ready, of himself, to surrender his thought and life captive to the obedience of Christ speaking directly to man in the words of Scripture than is the most blatant blasphemer and sensualist.^[12]

Van Til’s critique of Schaeffer at this point, as was said earlier, is much the same as his critique of most other apologists. It will not do to have a theory of truth that separates concept and content as Schaeffer offers. As Van Til is fond of reminding us, the what and the that go together. Denotation and connotation cannot be separated for the Christian. We cannot really point man to the true nature of his misery unless he sees that misery qualified in relation to God. Existential angst that is a product of man’s navel gazing is not enough. It is not enough for man to feel uncomfortable because he faces physical death and the nausea of being. He must see that his misery is misery precisely because he stands as an autonomous rebel in relation to the holy Triune God who created him. And to do this he must reckon not with a general sense of reality, but he must be confronted by the Christian apologist at once with God’s own speech defining the nature of that misery. It is also not enough for the Christian apologist to get the non-Christian to accept a correspondence theory of truth. “Modern subjectivism cannot be challenged in terms of any view of objectivity that has not been accepted on the authority of Christ.”^[13] If we really believe with Paul that God has created all things by Christ, that in Christ all things hold together, and that God is also reconciling all things to himself in Christ (Col. 1:15-20), then there is no thing we can know that is not immediately related to Christ. To turn a non-Christian subjectivist into a non-Christian objectivist is not really a movement at all. He still regards his own mind as the ultimate arbiter of rationality, since whatever counts as a proposition corresponding to the truth of the external world is still left to his autonomous rational judgment. We are still asking him to interpret his world first without reference to Christ. Thus to engage in pre-evangelism of any sort is to automatically grant that “the external world and the truth of what man is” has meaning and significance apart from Christ presented in the evangel. The Gospel still stands in line behind man’s independent and autonomous assessment of himself and his world. In line with this William Edgar has put his finger on the issue consistent Van Tilians have with Schaeffer,

At bottom, then, Schaeffer’s view of presuppositions does not allow him truly to be transcendental. Rather, he uses presuppositions as a kind of adjunct to various traditional methods in apologetical argument.^[14]

Schaeffer does not immediately confront the non-Christian with the necessary pre-conditions of human knowledge in light of the Trinity and the gospel. Instead, he confronts him with what is supposed to be the truth of the external world as though that world could be interpreted intelligently without immediate reference to the Word of the God who created, defines, upholds, and is redeeming that world. Van Til’s charge to Schaeffer and those who would take their cue from him is instead to be fearlessly direct with the non-Christian as an apologist. Own your Christian epistemology. Own your Christian metaphysic. Own your Christian ethics. Let your method be immediately shaped by them. If we confess that they are principial in theology, then they cannot be anything less in our defense of that theology.

The Qualification of Love

An unfortunate misunderstanding exists both in the disposition of some committed to Van Til’s apologetic methodology and in some of its critics. Because of Van Til’s penchant for totalizing polemics it is often assumed that he and his followers comb through the historic volumes of Christian theology and apologetics on a mission such as David Hume’s. “Does it contain a consistent outworking of Biblical, Trinitarian, and Reformed truth?” “No.” “Consign it to the flames!” One can get the impression from Van Tilians (and sometimes from Van Til himself) that any Christian theology or apologetic which is compromised by some taint of autonomous thinking deserves a summary dismissal. Perhaps it is because Van Til frequently seized upon such inconsistencies and then drew them out to what he saw as their logical end. But, even though Van Til pushes us to be tirelessly consistent in our theological and apologetic method, it does not mean that he did not recognize the helpful contributions of those who sometimes found themselves on the sharp end of his polemical scalpel. Such is the case with Schaeffer. The letter which comprises the first part of his syllabus in which he collected his criticisms of Schaeffer begins and ends with an important qualification. At the opening, Van Til confesses his personal affection for Schaeffer but qualifies that this ought not deter him from speaking openly and frankly to what he sees amiss in his apologetic method.

I now turn to a consideration of Schaeffer’s writings. I ask myself whether they support your contention that they depart from what you call a Reformed method of apologetics. You should remember that I have known Schaeffer for a long time. It will be with reluctance if I grant you your point. On the other hand, I do not want to be carried away by my love for him personally or by the reports of the “good work” that he has done in connection with L’Abri Fellowship. “Good work” is done in God’s kingdom all the time by those who hold to unbiblical views on apologetics and theology.^[15]

Okay. We can sense Van Til’s tongue in cheek dig at the unqualified assessment of Schaeffer’s work as “good” by his use of quotation marks. This could be read as Van Til being uncharitable. On the other hand, it simply could be read as realistic exasperation at a certain tendency that often surfaces in the Church. The good work (yes, good work without quotation marks) that is done in the kingdom is often used as a means to wave away any criticism of that work. If you don’t think this is true, try criticizing Billy Graham in any way whatsoever in front of Evangelicals. You will meet a wall of righteous indignation that surpasses even how Catholics respond to criticism of the Pope. Just because someone is being used in positive ways to advance the mission of the Church does not mean that they have a sacrosanct status elevated above all critique. Conversely, just because one critiques (or even scathingly critiques) a “good work” does not mean that they do not genuinely believe that there is good being done for the kingdom by that work. I think such is the case with Van Til in his critique of Schaeffer. The rigorous criticism of what he pens in the body of his letter is no reason to doubt the sincerity of that with which he ends his letter:

In conclusion let me reiterate what I said to you at the beginning. I am convinced that Schaeffer is, at heart, committed to a more biblical form of apologetics, than the one he actually presents in his writings so far discussed. I have written as I have written in the hope that he, as my brother in Christ, will stir me up to faithfulness in Christ as I, as his brother in Christ, am stirring him up now. May our common Savior make us ever increasingly useful in his service.^[16]

As we wrestle over the differences between these two men, may Christ do the same for us.

Notes

[1] Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, Vol. 1 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books), 155. [2] Ibid, 140. [3] Ibid, 140-141 [4] Ibid, 141-142. [5] Ibid, 144. [6] Ibid, 153. [7] Ibid, 155. [8] Ibid, 157. [9] For more on this see Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003-08.), 1:210-214. [10] This is one of Van Til’s explicit criticisms. The Apologetic Method of Schaeffer, iv. [11] Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, Vol. 1 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books), 269. [12] Van Til, The Apologetic Method of Schaeffer, 6. [13] Van Til, The Apologetic Method of Schaeffer, 5. [14] William Edgar, “Two Christian Warriors,” WTJ 57 (1995), 75. [15] Van Til, The Apologetic Method of Schaeffer, 3. [16] Ibid, 14.

In a recent blog post, Michael Horton shares a number of helpful points about the mindset of unbelief. In what presents itself as objectivity, the unbeliever actually brings a host of baggage with him or her. This is especially the case in the hard sciences, where supposedly neutral thinkers entertain new claims in an open and objective fashion. He writes,

Scientists disagree about all sorts of things: from matters as metaphysical as string theory to details over genetic mutation. In fact, as Michael Polanyi argued years ago, scientists belong to a concrete, historical community of interpretation. They too have lives, histories, and experiences within which they interpret reality.

Polanyi is useful here, but he’s not the only one. You could also reference Thomas Kuhn or even Michel Foucault at this point. People often fail to recognize their fundamental commitments—their presuppostions. These presuppositions guide, shape, and even control one’s thoughts about truth claims and the world around them. They’re individual and pervasive. We might expect that this wide variety of epistemic contexts would lead to a equally wide variety of approaches to the “big questions” of hard science. Yet this is precisely what has not happened in the history of scientific thought. There has been and continues to be a strong resistance to major paradigm shifts. Horton writes,

We all remember the ill-fated pronouncements of the church in relation to Copernicus and Galileo, but it was scientists who made the biggest fuss at least initially over the new cosmology. Not unlike religious communities, the scientific community resists massive paradigm shifts. That’s good, because we’d be starting over every day if it were otherwise. It takes a lot of anomalies to overthrow a well-established paradigm. But it happens.

The reigning paradigm does what it can to snuff out competing paradigms. As Horton comments, this tendency can be a good thing, but it can also allow a form of scientific fundamentalism to masquerade as open inquiry. Horton continues:

Of course, none of us is neutral. We all come to the evidence with big assumptions about reality. The Holy Spirit alone can bring conversion, but he does so through his Word. And he also uses supporting arguments and evidence that reveal too many devastating anomalies—indeed contradictions—that our reigning worldview can’t accommodate. One thing is for certain: to say that miracles do not happen because they cannot happen is as vicious a circle as any argument can be. In fact, it’s not an argument at all, but mere assertion.

A paradigm can prevent someone from accepting a truth claim if for no other reason than he has no working interpretive grid for that claim. Peter Berger developed his notion of “plausibility structures” along these lines. The Christian may speak to an unbeliever about miracles, but a naturalistic paradigm (worldview, episteme, etc.) has no way of incorporating the existence of miracles—ergo, they cannot exist. But the challenge to the gospel is deeper than getting such a person to admit the presence of miracles. Indeed, it’s even greater than proving the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. The Christian apologist must not only overcome a paradigm, he or she must also offer the correct “paradigm” in its place. Lane Tipton’s article, “Resurrection, Proof, and Presuppositionalism: Acts 17:30-31” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics argues exegetically that denotation and connotation can never be separated. In other words, it’s not enough to argue the case that something happened; the biblical apologist must also present the biblical understanding of what it means. This is critical for the apologist seeking to be faithful to Scripture, and it is precisely what Paul did at the Areopagus. Consider the following: the Stoicist can acknowledge the resurrection of Christ; it’s simply an unusual occurence, an “atomic swerve.” He has a plausibility structure that allows for resurrections. But such a “belief” in Christ’s resurrection is not a saving belief. The task of apologetics is greater than proving facts. It goes to the very heart of the gospel and ultimately seeks to defend that gospel on the only foundation it can: the self-authenticating, self-interpreting, Word of God.

Dr. Lane G. Tipton, Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, addresses the Roman Catholic teaching of nature/grace dualism and a variety of its uses. Nature/grace dualism undergirds much of how the Catholic church thinks through issues of anthropology, epistemology, and even cultural engagement. Listen to this insightful interview that touches upon theological methodology, apologetics, and even generic two-kingdom theology.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Lane G. Tipton

In 1946, the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary published a symposium on the doctrine of Scipture titled The Infallible Word. Cornelius Van Til’s contribution, an essay titled “Nature and Scripture,” is an important work describing the relationship of general and special revelation. In this episode, Dr. K. Scott Oliphint, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster, expounds on this essay and connects it to contemporary issues in philosophy and theological methodology.

Links

• Download a PDF of Van Til’s essay.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jared Oliphint, K. Scott Oliphint

In a recent interview with theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Colbert debated the existence of God, the nature of nothing, and the laws of quantum mechanics. Though he proceeds in his typical humorous fashion, he levies a simple, yet effective presuppositional argument. One of the tenets of presuppositional methodology (à la Cornelius Van Til) is to stand on the opponent’s philosophical foundation for the sake of the argument. Colbert’s closing line is a prime example of doing just that—all the while demonstrating the untenable foundation upon which his opponent stands. In the end, something ≠ nothing. ↬Jonathan Brack

K. Scott Oliphint explores the issue of divine and human knowledge as it relates to the Clark/Van Til controversy. Dr. Oliphint is Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary and is the author of several books on apologetics including Reasons for Faith and The Battle Belongs to the Lord.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jared Oliphint, K. Scott Oliphint

Links

• Northwest Theological Seminary
• Christ the Center 53 – The Young Bultmann with Bill Dennison

Bibliography

Other Formats

• Zotero RDF
• Dublin Core RDF

Participants: Bill Dennison, Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Nick Batzig

Links

• Ordained Servant

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Nick Batzig

Panel

• James White
• Jason Pickard
• Camden Bucey

Links

• Alpha & Omega Ministries
• Answering Islam

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, James White, Jason Pickard

Panel

• K. Scott Oliphint
• Jeff Waddington
• Jim Cassidy
• James Dolezal
• Camden Bucey

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, James Dolezal, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, K. Scott Oliphint