3. The Structure of Reality.

It cannot be both ways. Reality is either what the Bible says it is, or it is not. If it is not, then Christianity is not only mistaken on one or two particulars, it is totally false.

Christianity has a certain view of the world as the creation of the Triune God. All the scientific laws discovered by men were discovered because, consciously or not, men thought God’s thoughts after Him. As Bahnsen explained,

“The bold defense of the faith offered by Van Til’s presuppositionalism is that the unbeliever’s worldview fails to provide an adequate or workable theory of knowledge in terms of which the non-Christian can intellectually challenge the truth of Christianity. His presuppositions preclude the unbeliever from making claims to know anything intelligible or meaningful.”

3a. Creation Versus Chance.

In drawing a distinction between the Biblical doctrine of creation and the evolutionary view of chance, we are not concerning ourselves with a study of origins as such. We believe that Creation Science is an important ingredient of Christian knowledge. Our present concern, however, is with the logical implications of the two views. The Bible teaches that God created all things. Modern humanistic science professes to know that Chaos brought about our ordered Cosmos. So what we are interested in is the explanatory power of the two systems. Where do the so-called natural laws come from? Is human freedom (however one may define it) possible in an evolutionary universe? Whence Good and Evil? the law of contradiction?, history?, etc. Creation and chance put forth very different explanations of these questions. In principle, they come up against each other in every area of life.

As we have seen, Scripture portrays the natural man as in rebellion to the God whom he knows exists and has created him. This rebellion is so deep-seated that people will go to great lengths in order to suppress the knowledge of creature-hood they have. The world did not get here accidentally; it was planned and made. When men try to make sense of this world without reference to God, they are sinning. This is a simple application of the doctrine of General Revelation. “There is no area of impersonal relationships where the face of God the Creator and Judge does not confront man.” Therefore, Christians should not view the world in the same way that, for example, secularists look at “nature”. We see the same sunset as the unbeliever, but he or she looks at it with the eyes of a philosophical materialist (or Hindu pantheist or Muslim Unitarian). They convince themselves that the sunset is merely the diffusion of light-rays through a lowering angle as the Sun “goes down.” The believer, on the other hand, sees the hand of God in the world. It is unmistakable. God is the One who has designed the sunset. Moreover, He has given us the eyes and the aesthetic sensitivity to see and appreciate such things as sunsets. In short, we see the same things but we interpret them differently.

3b. The Creator/creature Distinction.

Because of man’s finiteness and spiritual deadness (Eph. 2:1) it is not surprising that he seeks to comprehend everything in terms of the same essence, placing God and creation on the same level. Any conception of “God” will be thought of as belonging within this single sphere of existence. This would mean that God and the creation are related by being composed of the same “stuff.” Herman Bavinck reminds us that the Christian doctrine teaches that “the world is not a part of or emanation from the being of God. It has a being or existence of its own, one that is different and distinct from the essence of God.” The creation depends upon God for its existence, but it was not created out of God. It was created ex nihilo – out of nothing. Christians who would defend his faith against an array of unbelievers must keep this distinction between God and creation at the forefront of their thinking. It will constantly confront them. Bavinck wrote,

“From the very first moment, true religion distinguishes itself from all other religions by the fact that it construes the relation between God and the world, including man, as that between the Creator and his creature. The idea of an existence apart and independently from God occurs nowhere in Scripture. God is the sole, unique, and absolute cause of all that exists.”

So, for example, when a Christian thinks about the knowledge of God he is not to think of it as a mere magnification of his own knowledge. Any knowledge we may possess is wholly derived from, and, therefore, dependent upon, God as its Source. But God’s knowledge is essential to His nature – being what it is by virtue of the fact that God is all-knowing. As creatures we know bits of information, but we do not know anything comprehensively or exhaustively, and we can only relate any fact to another fact when considering them in relation to their Originator. But God knows everything intuitively by knowing Himself absolutely. God does not derive knowledge (or power or goodness, etc.) from anything beyond Himself. His creatures, on the other hand, know in a limited way by discovering the information that God has already put into the world, and which He has previously defined and interpreted. The creature, then, is dependent upon the independent Creator for its knowledge, its power, and so on. This is what gives rise to true worship.

“Christians strive to see everything in light of creation’s dependence on God while the non-Christian tries to deny creation’s dependence…[E]very person who has not trusted in Christ…fails to account for the Creator-creature distinction and somehow puts God and His creation in mutual dependence on each other and ascribes to creation a degree of independence. With all the diversity of opinion among non-Christians, this is one uniting factor: the Creator-creature distinction is denied.”

This fundamental truth, as Richard Pratt reminds us above, must inform us in all our encounters with unbelievers (cf. Rom.1:25).

4. The Impossibility of the Contrary.

We have seen that presuppositionalism challenges the non-Christian to give sound reasons for any assertion he wants to make about the world. It ought to be clear enough by now that without God telling us the truth about our environment and ourselves, and without the faith to embrace God’s revelation, our understanding of reality will be awry.

The Bible places Christian epistemology squarely within the province of Divine revelation. We think this ought to be clear to anyone who studies their Bible (e.g. Gen. 1-3; Prov. 28:26 with 4:23; Psa. 36:9; 97:4; Rom. 11:36; Eph. 4:17-18; Col. 2:3). But this very thing is denied by “Reformed epistemologists” like Kelly James Clark. Clark writes, “I am dubious, however, about finding any ultimate or coercive support for epistemology in Scripture…The very idea of a biblical epistemology seems to me as misguided as the idea of a biblical meteorology.” – Steven B. Cowan, General Editor, Five Views on Apologetics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 256. Since he can’t find a Biblical epistemology anywhere, presumably Clark teaches a secular theory of knowledge to his students. Indeed, he must expect that Christians adopt a secular epistemology. How this squares with 2 Corinthians 10:5 we are scarcely able to say. While their contributions to apologetics are welcome, it does sometimes appear that this group is better versed in philosophy than in Scripture.

4a. Borrowing From God.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This is more than a theological tenet. It is a statement about what is here and the reason it is here. Taking God out of the equation leaves a person, be he scientist or philosopher or farmer or banker, in an epistemological quandary. The only way for an unbeliever to extract themselves from this quandary is for them to illicitly utilize ideas from the Christian-theistic worldview – the very worldview they attempt to deny. Robert Knudsen comments, “In regard to this transcendental orientation, one may remember Van Til’s illustration about the unbeliever’s use of borrowed capital. The unbeliever uses the good gifts of God, which are spread abroad in the creation and on which he depends in his thought and life, without giving God the glory. He is able to do what he does because he is using borrowed capital.” (Knudsen defines a transcendental argument this way: “A transcendental argument moves from what is to the conditions underlying its possibility”). No non-Christian can say anything true about the world unless they borrow certain foundational elements from the Biblical worldview. Frame puts it this way: “Indeed, there is a sense in which all of the unbeliever’s thinking is Christian. Christian presuppositions are the only way to think. The alternative is not thought, but meaninglessness.”

This type of argument states that unless the Christian worldview is first presupposed – however covertly – one cannot give adequate grounds for saying anything about anything. Bahnsen sums up this distinctive approach in this way:

“We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man, knowledge, etc., provide an outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense. It does not comport with the practices of natural science to believe that all events are random and unpredictable, for instance. It does not comport with the demand for honesty in scientific research, if no moral principle expresses anything but a personal preference or feeling. Moreover, if there are internal contradictions in a person’s worldview, it does not provide the preconditions for making sense out of man’s experience. For instance, if one’s political dogmas respect the dignity of men to make their choices, while one’s psychological theories reject the free will of men, then there is an internal defect in that person’s worldview.

It is the Christian’s contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview (taken from God’s self-revelation in Scripture) demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man’s reasoning, experience, and dignity.”

Summary.

Presuppositional apologetics sees its task as part and parcel of the larger enterprise of Systematic Theology. If one is a Christian one should never speak as if Christianity is only probably true (unless, of course, one thinks the Gospel one has believed is only probably true!). It is the only ground of truth, and non-Christian systems have to surreptitiously “borrow” from the Christian worldview in order to say anything meaningful. In the words of “the father of presuppositionalism”:

“Why seek truth where only a lie is to be found? Can the non-Christian tell us, and therefore the Christ Himself what the facts are and how they are related to each other, in what way they cohere, while yet excluding creation and providence? If he can, and if he can tell us truly, then the Christian story simply is not true!”

Of all the marks of a Christian mind, its supernatural orientation is the most important for anyone considering the collision between the Christian mind with the secular mind in the modern world. – Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind, 74

A Review of A. T. B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture, Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007, 229 pages.

There are precious few good books on the doctrine of Scripture or on theological method.  This book by the Principal of Highland Theological Seminary in Scotland, and a Visiting Professor at both Westminster and Reformed Seminaries, which speaks to both of these areas, is naturally of interest to evangelicals.  The book has already caused ripples in certain circles since its release, and this belated review will address some of the same issues, as well as adding one or two things which have, for whatever reason been bypassed in other appraisals.

McGowan purports to be “retrieving” the church’s teaching of a high view of Scripture while circumventing “less tolerant” (14) views of inerrantists, in N. America especially.

The author’s reasons for producing the book are fourfold and are plainly set out in the Introduction.  First, he believes the doctrine of Scripture belongs more properly under the locus of Pneumatology rather than being placed at or near the beginning of Systematic Theology (or, indeed in the theology of the Westminster Assembly, which he thinks made “a mistake which needs to be corrected” (12) when they placed it in the first chapter of the Confession.

The second reason for the book is the advocacy of an overdue change in accepted theological vocabulary.  He believes the terms ‘inspiration,’ ‘illumination’ and ‘perspicuity’ are unhelpful, especially today, and that they ought to be replaced ‘divine spiration,’ ‘recognition’ and ‘comprehension’ respectively.

The third change McGowan wishes to make is in regard to the inerrancy debate.  He thinks the inerrancy/errancy debate as it has transpired in America is a false dichotomy brought about by an ostrich-like mentality within American fundamentalism.  To be blunt about it McGowan does not believe that inerrancy is a biblical doctrine (e.g. 162), but is a rationalistic fabrication fostered on modern evangelicals who were enticed by Enlightenment categories.  In McGowan’s opinion “the apparent discrepancies, contradictions and other difficulties that so trouble inerrantists” (163) should be accepted for what they are.  He believes the discussion about inerrant autographs and their effect on the Bible as we have it leads into “sterile” territory, and he wants his book to be a positive contribution to evangelicals with a high view of Scripture who recognize the need to climb out of the barrenness of the inerrancy debate (164).  (In case you are tempted to think of Rogers & McKim I ask that you hold off judgment until later).

Fourthly, the author wishes to re-examine the role of proclamation in the church.  This review will concentrate on the first three issues rather than this fourth point.

Whatever my personal disagreements with McGowan, which are not minor, I respect what I interpret to be his sincere intentions to move theology forward in this area.  However, some of my observations will call attention to what I believe to be significant lapses in the author’s research.  Significantly, it is these weak areas which provide the very underpinning for the more radical proposals the writer urges us to accept.

Chapter Two is entitled ‘Reconstructing the Doctrine.’  In this chapter the author starts by emphasizing Scripture as revelation.  This is a welcome beginning as too many evangelicals come at Scripture schizophrenically.  Part of their thinking accepts the Bible as from God, while part believes that such acceptance must be arrived at through scientific reasoning.  Thus, Scripture only attains its right and proper status as the Word of God after it has passed the tests devised via human induction.  This makes the Bible’s claims rest finally not upon its own attestation, but upon the more precarious ground of rational approval and defeasibility.

McGowan proceeds to refer to three forms of special revelation: “Jesus Christ (the Incarnate Word), Scripture (the written Word) and preaching (the spoken Word).” (19). It is not the way those of evangelical persuasion have described the doctrine.  Preaching, to be sure, may be equated with the Word of God, but it is not inspired.  But special revelation is inspired.  Moreover, there were various modes of revelation in biblical times, but only Scripture is special revelation today.  Even Jesus Christ is known through the Scripture, not through any extra-biblical disclosure.

McGowan seeks a dynamic approach to revelation and he utilizes his former teacher, Barthian scholar John Webster’s relational method, while avoiding the Barthian dichotomy between revelation and Scripture (20-21).  It is not surprising to find him extolling Kevin Vanhoozer’s “dramaturgical” theory of revelation (in The Drama of Doctrine) while throwing suspicion on propositionalism (116-117).  But it is possible to construe propositional revelation in less static forms than the “concordance” view and yet retain its crucial role in theological method.

This stress on a “directed” revelation leads to talk about repositioning bibliology within the doctrine of the Third Person.  McGowan thinks the serious lack of emphasis upon the Holy Spirit is explicable in part by the fact that “Western rationalism and secularism have affected Christian theology more than we would …care to admit.” (22). So McGowan proposes to “reconstruct the doctrine of Scripture in light of our doctrine of the Holy Spirit.” (24).

Quite apart from the admissibility of the practice (which seems to me to be more subjective than objective), the question that arises in this reviewer’s mind is whether one ought to construct any doctrine on the basis of another.  This surely introduces human reason too soon in the theological process.  The doctrine of Scripture – wherever one chooses to put it in his system – must be arrived at first and foremost by the same process that any other doctrine (e.g. the doctrine of the Holy Spirit) is arrived at, not as a perceived deduction from other corpora.  This is to systematize before doing the exegetical groundwork.[1] In any case relocating the doctrine of Scripture within the doctrine of the Holy Spirit would be unnecessary in a system which was less scholastic in its insistence on rigid divisions, but rather threaded the theme of revelation throughout the presentation (e.g. Calvin, Frame).[2]

As an advocate of presuppositionalism I was happy to find McGowan using the work of Cornelius Van Til to establish a biblical epistemology (32-38) and to critique Kant (77-83).  Evangelicals who say they hold to the final authority of the Bible and who yet insist on employing reason independently of the Bible would benefit from these discussions.  Nevertheless, it should be noted that the primary function these discussions (in chapters 2 & 3) is to ground the critique of fundamentalism which comes up in chapter 4.

Before surveying the fourth chapter I should say something about the author’s recommendation of new vocabulary in the last half of chapter 2.  He wishes to replace inspiration with spiration.[3] As everyone knows, “inspiration” denotes breathing-in, not breathing-out.  But given that many words change their meaning over time, and that technical usage sometimes differs from normal usage, this change seems hardly worth the effort; especially when one considers the problems connected with the word ‘spiration’ – which sounds very odd.  It is doubtful whether the prescribed change will incite much enthusiasm.  The most important thing is to recognize the God-givenness of the text of Scripture.

Next he wants to substitute recognition for illumination and comprehension for perspicuity. With the first substitution I have some sympathy.  “Illumination” is an awkward term precisely because it implies “that the Scriptures need to have light shed upon them…The problem, however, is in the human mind and not in the Scriptures.” (44). Of course, other terminology has been used: ‘witness’; ‘testimony,’ etc.   Is “recognition” preferable?  More important is to define what we mean.  The Scriptures were written as a Self-disclosure of God and His works.  They are perfectly adequate for the task.  They constitute the Book of God, to be read and memorized and pondered and preached.  The problem, as McGowan notes, is with us.  Hence the need for the Divine Author to bring the reality of inscripturated truth home to us by an inner witness.  Does “recognition” better describe this action than “illumination”?  Well, certainly it throws light on the human acceptance of the theopneustic character of Scripture as the Word of God, but it does not elucidate the central tenet of illumination which is to seal the truth upon the heart and mind.

As for swapping “perspicuity” or “clarity” for “comprehension,” the author’s intention is to remind us of “the fact that only God the Holy Spirit can give us understanding (comprehension) of the Scriptures.” (47). This is good, but again this reader remains unimpressed with the proposal.

The final change in vocabulary, that of exchanging inerrancy for infallibility is the most controversial, not least because McGowan wants to do away with the concept of inerrancy altogether.

[2] I do not think the author’s approving reference to Stanley Grenz (24-25) helps his argument much here.  It seems to me Grenz had other reasons for advocating this maneuver.

[3] This reflects the original title of the book when it appeared in the UK, viz. The Divine Spiration of Scripture.

2. No Neutrality, No Autonomy.

C.S. Lewis noted years ago, the unbeliever likes to place God on the witness stand while he takes a seat on the bench. This is the essence of his rebellion! The believer cannot allow this attitude to go unchallenged. Non-Christians are not dispassionate observers – never mind impartial judges! Neither are they in the right to assume that human beings should act as if God did not exist. All men are obligated to believe in God.

The Apostle teaches that the unbeliever denies his Creator, and in so doing has become “vain in his imaginations” (Rom.1:21). The natural man has his understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the [willful] ignorance that is in him, because of the blindness of his own heart (Eph. 4:18). Paul’s view is expressed cogently in 1 Corinthians 1:20-21, 25:

“Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God that by the [apparent] foolishness of preaching to save those who believe…For the foolishness of God is wiser than men…”

Here we see a strategic difference between the thinking of the saved and the unsaved. To the unsaved, the preaching of the Cross of Christ (or, the Sovereignty of God, or, the Fall of mankind, or, the revelation of God, or, the Second Coming of Christ, etc.) is sheer tomfoolery. In his delusional state of seeing things, he does not need God and he does not want God. What, then, will he do with the evidences for God? He will treat them as our delusions!

Greg Bahnsen commented:

“…God’s revelation of Himself, whether in nature…or in the gospel…comes with such clear evidence and persuasive power that those who repudiate what He has revealed have their professed “wisdom” reduced to sheer folly and irrationality. They can only maneuver mentally to avoid…(without hope of success) their inescapable knowledge of God.”

The unbeliever’s problem with the reality of God, then, is not primarily intellectual, it is moral. This is a crucial point. We are not saying that there is no intellectual common ground between believer and unbeliever. Just that the ethical dimension gets in the way. The carnal mind, which “is at enmity with God” (Rom. 8:7), wills not to know God as He really is. The fact of the matter is, as Calvin said, that “after we rashly grasp some conception of divinity, straightway we fall back into the ravings or evil imaginings of our flesh, and corrupt by our vanity the pure truth of God.” If this is a proper understanding of the case then the non-Christian is not at all neutral. In fact, he is completely unqualified to adjudicate Truth, since he both distorts and lives in willful ignorance of the Source of Truth (cf. Jn. 18:37-38; Eph. 4:17-18). Now, if that is an accurate profile of “those that forget God,” is it correct to think that we as Christians ought to agree with unbelievers when they claim there is not enough plain and clear evidence that God exists? The Bible declares that it is foolish not to believe in God (Psa. 14:1; 53:1; Rom. 1:21-22). And we must humbly point this out to him, exactly as Paul did to the Athenians at Mars Hill in Acts 17.

In his presentation before the philosophers Paul emphasized seven things:

1). God is the Creator of all things, and is distinct from His Creation (Transcendence) (v 24).

2). He is also the Sustainer of life by His providence (v25). Further, He needs nothing (Aseity).

3). He rules over all nations (vv.26-27). He is not localized.

4). He is with and “in” every human being (Immanence) (vv.27-28).

5). Because of this God cannot be worshiped through an image (vv.28-29).

6). This one true God shall one day judge all mankind (vv. 30-31a).

7). God has given notice by the Resurrection that Paul is preaching (v.31b).

Notice that the first six points of Paul’s sermon are derived from Natural or General Revelation (albeit, it took the special interpretation of an Apostle to show it). We mustn’t assume that Paul is chiding them for not clearly seeing all this. He knows that sin distorts the picture. Nevertheless, he does appeal to the sensus deitatis that all humans have as God’s creatures. As Van Til expresses it:

“To be sure, finite man cannot know all the wondrous works of God. But man can and does know that God, his Creator exists. Man can and does know that God is the living God who is not only the original Creator but also the controller and bountiful benefactor of mankind.”

Van Til often used the illustration of a child slapping the face of the parent who carried it to show how even unbelievers must be “held” by God while insulting Him and questioning His existence. And that is why the classical arguments for God, and the evidences for the Bible’s veracity, ought not to be built upon mere probability, but upon the solid rock of the scriptural truth about man as the creature of God (cf. Acts 17:31).

Not only is the unbeliever not neutral in his approach to the truth of God, but the believer is not neutral either. Indeed, he is a believer (2 Tim. 1:12). He is made separate (sanctified) by “the Word of Truth.” (Jn. 17:17). He is for Christ, just as the unbeliever is against Christ. For the Christian apologist to ignore all this in an effort to “reach” the unbeliever is to deny the teaching of the Scriptures he claims he is defending.

2a. The Truth About Man.

It is an undeniable fact that if the God of the Bible exists then many supremely important conclusions about mankind must be drawn. Let me express them using Biblical phraseology:

We Are Born Rebels: All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is not a just man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not. We are God’s enemies: haters of God, and alienated from Him.

We Are Depraved: The sin within us is pervasive. It colors everything we do. Therefore, we do not like to retain God in our thoughts. This means that whatever we do we do not do it for God’s glory, and not to put God first in our thought is sin according to the First Commandment.

God Is Our Maker: It follows also that this world is God’s creation. We ourselves are made in the image of God. Not to acknowledge that fact is to despise our Maker.

We Intuit A Coming Judgment: Further, we know instinctively that a judgment is ahead, and we also know that we deserve condemnation. God originally made man upright but he has sought out many wicked devices. Those devices, or excuses he uses to deny the existence of God. Yet, according to the Bible, man has this nagging awareness that he will be judged, and he seeks to suppress that fact.

All Sinners Need A Substitutionary Sacrifice: Because we are all as an unclean thing, all of our deeds (even the “good” ones) are actually acts of rebellion. Even the plowing of the wicked is sin. Thus, all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Who, then can save us? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing? Only God can save us by the sacrificial death of His Son.

What is important to realize is that this is not abstract information that can be slotted into some “hollow space” within our being. It is the truth about us. It is light in the darkness, wisdom over against ignorance. It is the true description of people as fallen creatures in a fallen world. God rules and His Word is final. Man does not ignore the Word of God because that is a valid option that is given him. He ignores it because he hates it. He rejects it because he wants to be independent of God’s jurisdiction over him. “As children of Adam,” says Van Til, “[men and women] have always made…the effort required to cover-up the truth about themselves and God. They see every fact as other than it really is. By means of their …drama, poetry, philosophy – they try to prove to themselves that the world is not the estate of God and that they are not made in his image.” Thus, there exists a fundamental separation in outlook between Christians and unbelievers.

2b. Antithesis.

This brings us to the recognition of the concept of antithesis. “Antithesis” is one of those buzz-words of presuppositional apologetics which it is wise to retain. As presuppositionalists use it, the term connotes the mental and ethical standoff between believer and unbeliever. Believers have been born-anew into the kingdom of light (Col. 1:12-13), while non-Christians abide in the darkness precipitated and maintained by their unbelief. The minds of believers have been opened to see the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:3, 5), but the minds of unbelievers imagine vain things (see Psa. 2:1). Christians know the Holy Scriptures to be the unique revelation of God, unbelievers, on the other hand, remain ignorant of the real significance of the Bible, and wrongly attempt to locate ultimate authority in themselves. In his book on epistemology, Van Til pointed out that, “The Christian principle of interpretation is based upon the assumption of God as the final and self-contained reference point. The non-Christian principle of interpretation is that man as self-contained is the final reference point. It is this basic difference that has to be kept in mind all the time.” If one believes the Bible then the picture of humanity resulting from its study is one that is completely at odds with the picture the world has. Bahnsen explains:

“In terms of theoretical principle and eventual outworking, the unbeliever opposes the Christian faith with a whole antithetical system of thought, not simply with piecemeal criticisms. His attack is aimed, not at random points of Christian teaching, but at the very foundation of Christian thinking. The particular criticisms which are utilized by an unbeliever rest upon his basic, key assumptions which unify and inform all his thinking. And it is this presuppositional root which the apologist must aim to eradicate, if his defense of the faith is to be truly effective.”

The unbeliever must be brought to see that a reality shaped and controlled by any other thing than the Triune God is an impossibility. He must be asked how the logic, science, or facts he is using to reject Jesus Christ are even explicable within his non-Christian worldview. If he were to fully adopt the principles with which he rejects Christianity he would not be able to see a single thing in Scripture to agree with. But the antithesis is not absolute. There is a lot of crossover due to the fact that believers do not adopt a completely Biblical viewpoint, and unbelievers do not (indeed, cannot) adopt a totally non-Christian viewpoint. The concept of antithesis thus acts as a guard upon the thought-life of the believer, warning him against forsaking a Christian outlook while also admonishing him not to think naively that unbelievers interpret things from within a Biblical framework. As John Frame says, the non-Christian,

“is operating on a basic assumption or presupposition opposite to that of the Christian. And the unbeliever has strong motivation to interpret all of reality according to his own presupposition. Thus, when the unbeliever finds in his own thinking some uncomfortable bit of Christian truth, his inclination will be somehow to twist it, suppress it, deny it, domesticate it, or simply change the subject.”

In the last few weeks I have encountered articles and audio in which the approach to Apologetics known as Presuppositionalism has been thoroughly misconstrued.  I am therefore re-posting an older article, this time in short installments, which may help correct any stray reader who has been misled.

An Introduction

Apologetics is the defense and confirmation of the Christian Faith. Peter told his readers that they were to be “always ready to give an answer (apologia) for the hope which was within them.” (1 Pet. 3:15). He did not want believers to be caught napping. Their firm hope was not based upon “cunningly devised fables” (2 Pet. 1:16), but came about as a result of their reception of the truth about Christ and His world. Peter stated that the first step in Christians giving a reasoned defense was to, “sanctify the Lord Christ in [their] hearts.” He did not mean that the Lord was to be acknowledged on the basis of some ‘warm fuzzy-feeling’ inside. That was certainly not what the apostle was referring to. Rather, by “the heart” (kardia) Peter was speaking of the thinking person – the innermost person. George Zemek calls the heart “man’s mission-control center.” In short, Peter urged his readers to adopt a fully Christian outlook on life. This mindset is to be brought to the apologetic task. Believers have “the mind of Christ,” (1 Cor. 2:16), and they are to utilize it in their daily lives – and, in particular, says Peter, in their apologetics.

When one spells this out in plain terms, it means that Christians must not abandon their Bible’s at the crucial moment when their Faith is assailed. Instead, they are to assert confidently and intelligently the Biblical perspective about God, about man, and about the fallen world in which we live. What is called “Presuppositional” Apologetics attempts to do just that. It does not ask the Christian to step backwards in time and employ his unsanctified reason, and then to argue back to God. It refuses to re-enter the darkness of unbelieving thinking, and to grant that somehow “man by searching” can now “find out God.” (cf. Job 11:7). Rather, it picks up the light of the Creator (cf. Psa. 36:9b; Matt. 5:14-16; Eph. 5:8), and shines it upon the unbeliever’s rebellious heart, showing him the truth about his rebellion and his sinning against his better knowledge. Thus, presuppositionalism takes a self-consciously theological approach to the defense of the truth of Christianity.

This of course means that the division between theology and apologetics is one of emphasis, and it demands a different approach to apologetic thinking, since the door is wide open to theologizing right away. In this first article the focus will mainly be upon presuppositions; those heart commitments that govern the way people view things, both Christians and non-Christians. A Biblical apologetic is nothing if not a clash of worlds. With that in mind we begin with God and His Word.

1. God and Scripture.

The Presuppositional Argument for God’s existence takes into account (as it should) the basic assumptions of the believer and the unbeliever. It asserts that the fundamental aspects of the world of human experience are only intelligible within a Biblical-theistic framework. Propounding this as it does, it does not accept the autonomy of human reasoning, but, instead, holds to a “revelational epistemology” – a perspective on knowledge that is anchored in Scripture. All the standard theistic arguments are defeasable in character, which is to say, they cannot come to certainty, but must admit the possibility of being overturned. This is not the way the Bible presents God (e.g. Gen. 1:1ff.; Psa. 53:1; Jn. 1:1-14; Acts 2:36; 9:22; Rom. 1:1ff.). Why, then, should it be ours?

1a. Nobody Can Hide From The One True God.

Above everything else, believers should think Biblically. They are commanded to “do all things to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31), and this includes loving God with all their minds (Matt. 22:37). Paul told the Church at Colossae that in Christ, “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). Since, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7), and of wisdom (Prov. 9:10), Christianity – and everything else – is best defended from within a Christian point of view. After all, it is all very well for us to declare that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, but what use is such a profession if we lay it aside in apologetics? Are we supposed to rely upon our own understandings at the outset? (Prov. 3:5). Christians should not be concerned about proving to a skeptic that a god of some description exists. Mere “theism” is not the issue, and any acknowledgement of bare theism constitutes no apologetic victory. In two separate psalms we are told that, “the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.” (Pss.14:1; 53:1).

Unbelief is rooted in heart-rebellion. As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once told the philosopher C.E.M. Joad, “God is not a subject for debate” (Gen. 1:1; Jn. 1:1). He is not one whom we may be honestly skeptical about. He is the ultimate reality. General revelation shows God to man (Rom. 1:18-20). To disbelieve in Him is to think as a fool in God’s world (Rom.1:22; 1 Cor. 2:6-16). To be sure, fallen men bury God’s clear revelation under an avalanche of brilliant excuses and shrewd reasoning. But it is false reasoning; sinful reasoning (Rom.1:21-22, 28).

The famed English writer G.K.Chesterton once said, “If a man does not believe in God, it is not that he will believe in nothing, but that he will believe in anything.” John Calvin, in his Institutes, began the book by saying that man cannot come to true knowledge unless he knows God and then knows himself before the face of God. These Biblical beliefs must find a conspicuous place in our approach to the defense of Christianity.

It is the universal teaching of both Testaments that God is God alone (Isa. 44:6; 45:5-6, 21). All Christians have historically believed in only one God (Jer. 10:10; 1 Thess. 1:9; Psa. 86:10; 1 Tim. 1:17; Jam. 2:19). There are not two or more competing gods (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 32:40). The Bible presents a God who is Almighty and solitary. He will brook no rivals. Deuteronomy 6:4 states; “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” This verse is repeated by the Lord Jesus in Mark 12:29. We also find the doctrine in John 14:9; Col. 1:15, and many other places. Further, we Christians assert, on the basis of Holy Scripture, that God “has not left Himself without a witness.” (Acts 14:17). The God of the Bible is the greatest Fact (cf. Exod. 3:13-14), a truth which some apologetic schools deny, believing as they do that God is not as obvious to men and women as many mundane things. But without the fact of God all other facts, as we shall see, are simply unintelligible.

The Christian-Biblical position says that whoever sees the world Biblically sees it truly – as it really is. Whoever rejects a Biblical worldview misinterprets the world (to the extent that he follows a false worldview). We must never forget that because reality is God-formed, even rank infidels see some things (e.g. principles of science, norms of ethics, etc.) in much the same way Christians do. But they do this by not following their worldview.

1b. Should Human Reason “Authorize” Scripture?

Many Christian apologists begin without the Bible when trying to establish the existence of the one true God. Greg Bahnsen noted: “It is a common mistake among evangelicals to imagine that the authority of God and His Word is the basis for their theology and preaching, but the authority for defending this faith must be something other than God and His Word.” These apologists employ what is essentially a modified “Natural Theology” as the first step in their apologetic procedure. They attempt to get to God without taking into account what God has said about Himself. In establishing the theistic arguments on human reason alone, these men are doing four things that ought to give pause to Bible believers: 1. They set up human reason as the first (and therefore, ultimate) court of appeal. 2. They only deal in probabilities, never certainties. 3. They can only posit a deity, not the triune God of Scripture. 4. They hide their own Christian pre-commitments by their methodology, but they are forced to admit Christian concepts only. But is that what we ought to be satisfied with? Does the Scripture lead us to expect that the Christian assertion for the existence of God only cashes out in the currency of probability? And if, as many an atheist or agnostic will gleefully tell us, the arguments so often presented by these apologists are open to serious objections, does that mean that the unbeliever really does have sufficient reason to remain in his unbelief and rebellion?

1c. The Self-Attesting Scriptures.

A person must have some authority: some ground upon which he stands and upon which he builds his outlook on life. If the authority is not the Bible, then perhaps it is naturalism, or the Koran, or even Oprah. Whichever authority is chosen, no one is neutral. Therefore, we as Christians should not to be afraid to agree with Christian writer Brad Scott when he says, “orthodox Christianity is frankly presuppositional.” Every opinion is. So, then, there are lots of “foundations”, and conflicting authorities. Obviously, only one of these authorities can be true. Only one can actually correspond with the way the world is. All the others will inevitably conflict with reality.

According to Jesus Christ, whoever builds his life upon His words builds upon a lasting and solid foundation. Whoever builds upon any other foundation, however splendid it may look, in truth builds upon a foundation of sand (Matt. 7:31-37). Obviously, Christ’s words are found in the Bible. Thus, we are once more thrown upon Scripture (cf. Jn.10:35). Scripture was the ultimate authority for Jesus Christ. It therefore ought to be the ultimate authority for those of us who would be like Him. An ultimate authority (Scripture) cannot be brought before the bar of any secondary authority (like human reason). So presuppositionalists say that Scripture is self-attesting. As Graeme Goldsworthy has pointed out, “By definition a final authority cannot be proven as an authority on the basis of some higher authority. The highest authority must be self-attesting.” Furthermore, says Goldsworthy, “Either we work on the basis of a sovereign, self-proving God who speaks to us by a word that we accept as true simply because it is his word, or we work on the basis that man is the final judge of all truth. The Christian position, to be consistent, accepts the Bible is God’s Word…” Because the words of Christ are in the Bible, we can speak, like Cornelius Van Til often does, of the “Self-attesting Christ of Scripture.” The Word of God, whether Incarnate or inscripturate, is not subject to the word of men.

1d. The Self-Attesting Christ of Scripture.

We have noticed that the Christian is to assume a Biblical mindset. He or she is said to have “the mind of Christ,” so it would be a strange breed of Christian that would openly set that aside in any of its deliberations. A child of God is to bring “every thought captive to Christ.” (2 Cor. 10:5). Van Til correctly asserted, “Faith in the self-attesting Christ of the Scriptures is the beginning, not the conclusion, of wisdom.” The only Christ the Christian cares about is the Christ of the Bible – the Christ of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – the Word who gave the Book. Any other Christ is an imposter who carries no authority. Our Christ calls us and we know His voice (Jn. 10:27), just as everyone that is of the truth hears His voice (Jn. 18:37). “The Christian, therefore,” adds Van Til, “attempts to understand his world through the observation and logical ordering of facts in self-conscious subjection to the plan of the self-attesting Christ of Scripture.” A saint who consciously refuses to use the mind of Christ and its outlook until his own reason gives the go-ahead, is a Christian who believes it is right to think independently of God, at least for the time being. By contrast, Van Til declared, “as Christians we must look at the world as Christ Himself looked at it and, in so far as any man does not, he views it falsely. Consequently the attempt to find God in the world without looking through the eyes of Christ is fruitless, not because the world does not reveal God (it continually shouts of the existence of God to men), but because men need new eyes!” This immediately creates a tension between the demands laid upon us in Scripture, and our own unscriptural thinking. The NT says “if any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God.” (1 Pet.4:11). But many of us want to argue for the truth of Christianity by deliberately not speaking in the prescribed way. We know that the non-Christian will reject the Biblical worldview and the Bible’s diagnosis of himself as a fallen creature, but he must be confronted with these facts and shown the folly of an unbelieving heart attitude.

To be continued.

I have just finished reading an interesting autobiography by a major Bible teacher of the first part of the 20th Century named Arno C. Gaebelein.  The book is titled A Half Century: The Autobiography of a Servant. The book is beautifully bound and signed by the author, August 10th 1944.  Gaebelein died a year later.  I found several items of interest in the book that I thought I would like to share.

I should first say something about the subject.  A. C. Gaebelein was one of the most important teachers of what he called Dispensational truth in the halcyon days of America’s Prophetic Movement.  He was well acquainted with the likes of James H. Brookes, C. I. Scofield and many other premillenarians of the day.  He authored a number of books, the best of which (in my opinion) are Harmony of the Prophetic Word,  The Annotated Bible, The Angels of God, and Conflict of the Ages. He also wrote a fine exposition of the Olivet Discourse.

Gaebelein published his book in 1930 when Jehovah’s Witnesses were called “Russellites,” when Pentecostals were commonly denounced as heretical enthusiasts, and when Presbyterian pastors enthusiastically endorsed premillennialism.

Here are some reflections on his Autobiography:

1. The first thing is that Gaebelein was diligent.  He was very driven (as we say today) and made the most of his opportunities to teach himself the biblical languages, as well as Syriac and, because he at first worked as an evangelist to Jewish immigrants in New York, Yiddish (he also knew German, having been raised in Germany).

In the second place he was diligent.  Not only did he learn several languages on his own, he was constantly reading his Bible, writing books and pamphlets, editing his magazine “Our Hope,” and preaching.  He was very industrious.  He writes in one place about the importance of reading the Bible as a means of communing with God and refreshing the soul.  Without this, he believed it was not possible to maintain a right relationship with the Lord.

I was impressed by this conviction that attentive Bible reading and a living and open relationship with God were inextricably linked.  The Bible is the source of our sermons and our theology.  But it must also be the voice of the personal God to us.  It must be God speaking to us.  “Ministry,” he writes, “can only be kept by a real growth in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and such growth demands a diligent and prayerful study of the Bible.” (169).

In another place he mentions a small prayer-book which he carried around with him and made it his habit to consult and pray for people whenever he had a free moment.  Gaebelein placed a lot of emphasis on prayer: “True ministry must be born in prayer and communion with the Lord.  A ministry without prayer is barren.” (237).

2. The author was also valiant for truth.  On one occasion he recounts being incited to dine at the home of one of New England’s social elite, a relative of Henry Ward Beecher.  During dinner the lady turned to Gaebelein saying: “Do you not that it is encouraging to find that our fair New England is turning more and more away from that awful teaching that a human being can get to heaven by the blood of another man?”  As the author takes up the story; “She waited a moment, and, as I did not answer, she continued, ‘As if the blood of an innocent victim could do any good to anybody.  It is our character, our life which tells.  This is the true Gospel.’” (109).

After reminding the lady that she was a relative of Lyman Beecher, who believed the very Gospel she was derogating.  He said to her: “unless you are washed in the blood of the Lamb you will never see heaven.  You are very old, soon you must pass on, and I can assure you your character cannot save you.”

It takes a lot to be so “impolite” at the home of so prominent a person.  This scenario was faced on a number of occasions with the same faithful result.

3. He had a strong sense of the providence of God, and would not enter upon a venture – however alluring – if he didn’t have peace of mind about it.

There were times when he had tempting offers to turn aside from his itinerant work and accept a well paid pastorate.   I was impressed with his unwillingness to go into anything to which he was not convinced his Lord had not sent him.  This trust extended to his never setting fees for speaking engagements.  He believed the money would be provided.

This sometimes meant him spending nights in less than stellar accommodations, although it is worthy of note that he was unashamed to request comfortable food and lodgings if they were available.  (I have sometimes had to endure disagreeable conditions when on the road – although not for some time – they are hardly conducive to “giving ones best”).

4. Gaebelein was constantly proclaiming Jesus Christ.  He was very evangelistic and would always include a message on the Gospel, even when his Christian hearers would rather hear a message on prophecy.  He knew that Christians need to hear the Gospel too (despite what some “mature” brethren think).  And he knew there would likely be unbelievers in the audience.

This stress upon the proclamation of the Cross is also seen in the preaching of C. I. Scofield, whose In Many Pulpits shows him to have been no ear-tickler.

5. He had faults.  He admits them toward the end of his book (230-231).  But throughout the reader is informed of the great blessing Gaebelein’s ministry brought to people.  This is a little grating as he might have worded these testimonials more self-effacingly.

But his faults only remind me of my own woeful shortcomings.  I was challenged by his dedication and commitment to hard graft, and was encouraged by being reminded that if one is engaged to any extent in teaching prophetic truth from a “literal” interpretation of Scripture, he is going to draw fire from many quarters.  The main thing is to serve the Lord with what you are given in the field He has placed you.

6. Finally, as if this needs to be stated, we should not neglect the reading of these older autobiographies and biographies!

What a remarkable event the new birth is!  What a reversal, a triumph, an utter transformation!  I (I should say “we”), who am a continuing stain on God’s landscape (Rom. 3:10-18) – contributing nothing but a deepening of the stain (Matt. 6:11a)  – I have been born from above (1 Pet. 1:23)!  I have been cleansed and forgiven (Heb. 9:11-15)!  God has given me a new life and He has adopted me as His dear son (Rom. 8:15-17).  According to the Apostle Paul I have been “delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred… to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13).  Jesus says I have eternal life, that I shall not come into judgment, but have actually “passed from death unto life” (Jn. 5:24).

The reason I believe these great truths is because I believe Jesus and those He appointed and inspired.  Jesus is the Truth (Jn. 14:6), and He comes from Him that is true (Jn. 7:28-29).  As the Truth He attests to Himself (Jn. 8:14, 16), and to know Him is to know the truth (Jn. 8:31-32).  Therefore, all that are of the truth hear His voice (Jn. 18:37c).  Jesus’ very character is “Faithful and True” (Rev. 19:11).

Now for my point: When Jesus says that “in the beginning God made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4) He is referring to Adam and Eve in the Garden (cf. Gen. 2:18-24).  Jesus also refers to the murder of their son Abel in Luke 11:51.  When Paul, who received his teaching from the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:15-17),  gives a reason for not admitting women to the teaching office of the church he goes back to Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:12-14).  But why did they bother arguing along these lines if they knew their doctrines were resting on mythical foundations?  And what is Jude doing telling us about Enoch being “the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14) if he didn’t believe in Adam?  (Perhaps he didn’t believe in all the other historical data he refers to either!).

Now comes the magnificent phalanx of scholars, with (on this occasion) Tremper Longman at the head.  In the first part of this article I noted that Longman has gone one better (or worse) than those evangelicals who denied the literal six day creation, and even those who taught theistic evolution, by casting real doubt on the historicity of “a little historical Adam” as he rather contemptuously refers to him.  Is Longman calling Jesus a liar then?

“No no, not at all young man” comes the self-assured reply.  And then comes the inevitable spiel about Jesus accommodating His teaching to the beliefs of His auditors.  “After all, doesn’t God “stoop” when declaring Himself to our finite understandings?”

Yes, God stoops.  But then there is stooping and stooping.  God uses anthropomorphism and anthropopathism to describe Himself.  He is “as a mother” or “like a farmer” or ” a man of war,” etc.  That is one kind of stooping. But what Longman would have to recommend, if he is to remain within the perimeter of “Evangelicalism,” is another kind of stooping!  Jesus would be the purveyor of falsehoods.  He would be a contributor to darkness and ignorance, not the dispeller of it.  He would be a dealer in half-truths and outright error.  He whose word I have relied upon wholly would be a proven peddler in misinformation.  Imagine the unimaginable for a moment:

Longman’s Jesus:  “in the beginning when God created them male and female…”

Skeptic: “Excuse me…Sir…are you saying that God actually created a little historical Adam and Eve?”

Longman’s Jesus: “No, I’m just making a point about marriage.”

Skeptic: “Couldn’t your point be made without reinforcing the false notion that Genesis 1-3 is literal history?”

Longman’s Jesus: “The words I speak to you are true…everyone who is of the truth hears my words….I am the truth.”

Skeptic: “But you have just taught us something that is untrue.  It does not comport with historical reality.  If you do not believe in a little historical Adam in Genesis 1-3, am I to understand that you deny the fall?”

Longman’s Jesus: “Certainly not!  Man is a sinner.  Anyone can see that.”

Skeptic: “Really?  Then why don’t you just say that?  Why perpetuate a myth? Surely you realize these folks and many after them will try to construct a whole world and life view on the foundation of the opening chapters of Genesis?  It sounds to me like you are seeking to authorize your teaching by an illegitimate appeal to the ignorant beliefs of these poor people.  You are taking advantage of them!”

Conclusion

And so on it would go…

This is the Jesus scholars such as Tremper Longman would leave you with!  He just couldn’t cut it.  He would be a false Christ (Mk. 13:22); another Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4 – n.b. verse 3!).  He would have no credibility!

This is the choice we are left with: Longman’s Conman Jesus or the Real Jesus – who can do nothing but speak the whole truth and dispel the darkness (Jn. 3:19-21).  Perhaps Longman hasn’t made the connection, but we should!  And we should have nothing to do with preaching a Jesus who traffics in what he believes is historical humbug and then proclaims Himself to be “the Truth!”  That is Longman’s Jesus even if he is unaware of it.  My Jesus is “the second man,” “the last Adam.” (1 Cor. 15:45-47).  He is worthy of every statement I began this piece with and more.  He is not like me!  He is not like Tremper Longman.  Jesus is “Him that is true” (1 Jn. 5:20), and that to the ultimate degree!

“God’s elect do not exist without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  We derive all that we are not from ourselves, but from that rich Dweller in our hearts.  we, His poor host, have nothing, and from our own treasury can produce not even a grain of love; but our rich Guest works in us with all His wealth.  Or rather, not with His own, but with the riches of Christ’s cross-merits; and with lavish hands He spends these cross-merits upon the poor owner of the house, making him unspeakably rich.” – Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, 546.

Introduction

Non-biblical philosophies have a way of creeping into even the best Christian writing.  Given the reality of the Fall this is perhaps unavoidable.  Still, Christians should regard it as their duty to their Lord not to be reliant upon any unscriptural underpinnings in their theology.  The Apostle Paul, who knew the philosophers (Acts 17), sees it as one of his obligations to remind believers how they ought to think (e.g. Rom. 12:1-2; Col. 2:8).  Ones ultimate criterion of thought, the most basic appeals to facticity, affect the outworking of ones worldview.  This is to be seen more clearly in some scholars than in others.  Those I have in mind in this piece are men who take a view of the Bible which runs counter to what the Bible itself permits, and whose scriptural vision is duly impaired.

Scripture always and everywhere presents itself as the Word of God.  This is either assumed, as in the opening verses of the Book of Genesis, or it is stated explicitly (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:16).  The Lord Jesus Himself is quite matter-of-fact in the way He assumes the Holy Scriptures to require no other human response but that of belief (e.g. Jn. 5:39-47).  The Bible is self-attesting (Isa. 66:2b).

When once a person has become a Christian he has entered upon a true relationship with the Author of the Word which, by supernatural working, he has believed and by which he has been given light with which to search it and think about it.  He has not acquired saving knowledge by anything within himself.  He has not come to know the Author of life and the Creator of time and space unless he has come to know Him through His Word, and the true significance of the Word.  Saving knowledge opens our eyes to all other knowledge – or at least it should.  Thus, Scripture is seen as the touchstone of all veridical truth.  We begin our knowing anew in light of God’s Word (Psa. 36:9).

Of course, to operate this way one must be like Jesus and the Apostles and accept the outside-Word from God without placing it through the wringer of empiricism.  Faith, for sure, is what brings the testimony of the Spirit with it to give certainty.  But whether faith is present or not does not alter the provenance of the Bible, and thus its ultimate authority or its right to provide the first principles of knowledge.  If “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psa. 24:1), then a biblical perspective, not just on sin and salvation, but on every other subject under the sun is demanded.  If this is not done the rights of theology will be circumscribed by the creature to the detriment of a proper Christian worldview.

To see how a non-biblical starting point reduces the impact of God’s revelation on the Christian mind, and so on Christian theologizing I will take a look at a theological titan whose first principles kept him from developing such a worldview.

B. B. Warfield’s Common Sense Foundation

When it comes to pointing to theological giants of the past, even those not disposed to favor evangelicalism will not begrudge the name of Benjamin B. Warfield[1] of Princeton as deserving of honorable mention in the annals of American theology.  In both the United States and Great Britain there are few men who command more respect, at least in conservative theological circles.  Most would probably place him just behind Jonathan Edwards as America’s greatest Protestant theologian.  One must have a good reason if one is to disagree with such a man.

Notwithstanding, when it comes to the matter of theological method and presuppositions, it is possible to find fault.  We might approach the subject from several angles.  For example, we might ask the question, “Why did Warfield, in line with so many of his Christian contemporaries like James Orr, or his student J. Gresham Machen, accept theistic evolution as being compatible with the teachings and dictates of the Christian Faith?”  Or we could enquire about Warfield’s resistance to the neo-Calvinist proposals of Abraham Kuyper.[2]

A more basic question still would be to ask about the Princeton man’s approach to First Principles – those foundations upon which he thought every belief must be constructed.  To do this I shall reproduce an illuminating section from Warfield’s essay “Apologetics” in which he provides a convenient summary of his views on the relation of Theology to Science.  Under the sub-heading of “The Conception of Theology as A Science” he writes:

In the presence of Christianity in the world making claim to present a revelation of God adapted to the needs and condition of sinners, and documented in the Scriptures, theology cannot proceed a step until it has examined this claim; and if the claim can be substantiated, this substantiation must form a part of the fundamental department of theology in which are laid the foundations for the systematization of the knowledge of God.  In that case two new topics are added to the subject-matter with which apologetics must constructively deal, Christianity – and the Bible.  It thus lies in the very nature of apologetics as the fundamental department of theology, conceived as the science of God, that it should find its task in establishing the existence of a God who is capable of being known by man and who has made Himself known, not only in nature but in revelations of His grace to lost sinners, documented in the Christian Scriptures.  When apologetics has placed these great facts in our hands – God, religion, revelation, Christianity, the Bible – and not till then are we prepared to go on and explicate the knowledge of God thus brought to us, trace the history of its workings in the world, systematize it, and propagate it in the world.[3] (Emphasis added).

This approach has been particularly influential in the United States.[4] Here, at least since the Enlightenment it has been normal in conservative circles to hold that for Theology to be categorized as “science” it must adopt the same inductive approach which, say, astronomy (Warfield’s example), or biology does.  This means that for any Christian doctrine to be accepted – even by Christians – it must first pass the test of empirical and rational validity.  The task that Warfield, in line with all Christian evidentialists, sets apologetics is nothing short of the prior vindication of the legitimacy of rational discourse about “God, religion, revelation, Christianity, the Bible.”  Unless these categories can pass the acid tests of inductive reasoning they cannot be regarded as true.  In similar vein Warfield’s illustrious predecessor Charles Hodge declared, “The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science.”[5] Warfield stated further that, “Like all other sciences…theology, for its very existence as a science, presupposes the objective reality of the subject-matter with which it deals…”[6]

He then lists those presuppositions, seemingly unaware of the fact that in granting a priori the evidentiary neutrality and “thereness” of the “facts” he was handing the infidels all they could wish for in their determination to rid Evangelical Theology of this scientific status and thus to eject it from the Academy.  This is seen again in the following statement printed in 1911: “The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one, in which the theologian as such has no concern.  As an interested spectator, however, he looks on as the various schools of scientific speculation debate the question among themselves…”[7]

What do we read here if not a Christian segregating his faith from the pursuits of secular science?  Where is the Christian worldview?  What is this naiveté that treats the findings of secularist scientists so unpretentious?

The answer, as many have pointed out, is the old Princetonian commitment to the philosophy of Common Sense which was brought over from Scotland by John Witherspoon and accepted by his students as the basic foundation for knowledge and certainty.  One of these students was William Graham the teacher of Archibald Alexander the teacher of Charles Hodge.  By the first half of the 19^th century this Scottish Common Sense philosophy (SCS) had permeated the thinking of most American intellectuals, Protestant evangelicals foremost.[8] Grounded upon the inductive method of Sir Francis Bacon, its teachings were fairly straightforward.  SCS held to a naïve kind of epistemological realism in which the connection between the knower and the object of knowledge in the world was the way Everyman experiences it.  Thus, all that was to be achieved was an independent and unprejudiced examination of “the facts.”[9] Or as Thomas Reid said in reply to Hume’s skepticism, “reality is how we perceive it.”  As George Marsden and others have demonstrated, this common sense appeal to what “all men know” was where Warfield would have us ground our theology.[10]

But if everybody shares this “common sense” then whether they be saved or lost, the honest conclusions of scholars must be accepted wherever they are published.  Thus, Warfield’s willingness to hand over the science of human paleontology to “experts” and accept their empirical findings as an interested onlooker.

Compare Warfield’s words with this paragraph by the greatest English Puritan theologian, John Owen:

What concern can there be, then, between the wisdom of God and any conceivable human scholarly discipline?  The former has been revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, the latter synthesized by a multitude of earthly methods.  Therefore, if you will consider the origin, the subject-matter, the purpose, the methods of learning and teaching, in short, the whole concept and purpose of theology, it will be at once evident that it simply cannot be numbered in any manner among the sciences, be they practical or speculative; nor can it suffer itself to be bound by their methodology and rules.  Indeed, the very terms “method” or “technique,” etc., which are quite proper to the sciences, can have no validity here, where we are to deal with God’s will as revealed in the Scriptures.[11]

Owen’s concern was that theology would be illegitimately treated as a class subject like English Grammar or Mathematics, and not like the revelation of the Creator which it is.[12] It would be wisdom in us today if we were to keep the ontological status of special revelation before us at all times.  For men like Owen, theology, which involves the logical arrangement of revelation, cannot be seen for what it actually is unless it is viewed with the eyes of faith.[13]

This delivering up of whole chunks of knowledge by the Princetonians to secularism is what has contributed to the demise of a Christian voice in the University.[14] In speaking of Charles Hodge (but applying it equally to Warfield), George Marsden concluded,

Hodge and his evidentialist counterparts claimed to start with a neutral objective epistemology that could be shared by all persons of common sense.  Such a view worked well enough so long as there was a general consensus in the culture on certain metaphysical issues.  Through the first half of the nineteenth century substantial elements of metaphysical assumptions of the Christian worldview survived.  People generally assumed, for instance, that God, other spiritual beings, and normative moral principles were realities that were proper objects of human inquiry and knowledge.  When this consensus disappeared, the proponents of a neutral and objective epistemology [like Hodge and Warfield] had little grounds for rebuttal.  The question became, ‘Were such areas [i.e. God and the supernatural] proper areas for scientific inquiry and knowledge?’[15]

The Princeton men, for all their greatness, had tried to erect the truth of God upon a neutral common sense inductive foundation instead of a revelational one.[16] When the world moved on and embraced evolution theory, psychoanalysis, sociology, the new physics, logical positivism, and language philosophy there was no more patience with evangelical systematic theology, which was relegated to another sphere by a secularism that had all the arms at its disposal to rid itself of common sense naiveté.  Ironically Warfield’s faulty epistemological foundation for theology and apologetics, which is still shared by a majority of evangelicals[17], has made it easy for the modern world to shove theology into the sphere of “value” as opposed to “fact.”

[2] See Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931, 1994).

[3] Benjamin B. Warfield, “Apologetics,” in Studies In Theology, Works IX, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1932, 2003), 12.

[4] George Marsden, “The Collapse of American Evangelical Academia,” in Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, eds., Faith and Rationality, (Notre Dame, Ind: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1991), 252.

[5] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (n.p., Hendricksen, 2003 reprint), 1:10.

[6] Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” in Studies in Theology, 55.

[7] Warfield, “On The Antiquity and The Unity of The Human Race,” – Ibid, 245.

[8] George M. Marsden. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 14-15.

[9] Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development, David F. Wells, editor, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 82-83.

[10] See especially Marsden, “The Collapse of American Evangelical Academia,” 253.

[11] John Owen, Biblical Theology, (Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994, [1661]), 9.

[12] One can see the same concern in D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ address given at the opening of London Theological Seminary, entitled, “A Protestant Evangelical College,” reprinted in, idem., Knowing The Times, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989).

[13] This concern comes out many times in Owen’s writings.  Another good example is the sixth chapter of  his, The Reason of Faith, in Owen’s Works VI, 82-100.

[14] So argues Marsden in his essay.

[15] Marsden, “The Collapse of American Evangelical Academia,” 246.

[16] Charles Hodge stated, “As science, concerned with the facts of nature, has its several departments, as Mathematics, Chemistry, Astronomy, etc., so Theology having the facts of Scripture for its subject, has its distinct and natural departments.” – Systematic Theology, 1.31-32.

[17] Sad to relate, many evangelicals, Reformed or otherwise, will still not accept the doctrine of the self-attestation of Scripture.

Congratulations President Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize for….well whatever!  I’m sure no one could think of anybody more deserving.

Honestly, is there any sanity left in the world?