2000 Issue 1 - Apologetic Methodology and the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture - Counsel of...

8/12/2019 2000 Issue 1 - Apologetic Methodology and the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/14

A rief justification for

ster Confession

of

Faith and evidences for our faith?

n

the RPCUS conviction that

the Larger and Shorter Cat-

fact, presuppositional apolo-

strict subscription to the

echisms. Three initial objec- getics alone places Christian

Westminster Confession

of

tions are commonly raised

theistic evidences upon a

Faith requires a

against our position. They are

platform

of

certainty so that

presuppositional apologetic

addressed first to prepare the

they can be presented with all

Introduction

reader for the discussions that

the force and confidence that

will follow. Scripture declares and Christ

The RPCUS: A Denomina-

Initial Objections to the

demands.

tion Committed t

Apologetical Commitment

(2) Some would accuse the

Presnppositional

of the RPCUS

RPCUS

of

making an extra-

Apologetics

(1) There is a prevailing

Confessional doctrine a

The Reformed Presbyterian

opinion among some Re-

benchmark for orthodoxy.

Church in the United States

formed ministers, elders, and

Given the special interests in

(RPCUS) is wholeheartedly

seminary professors that

the Reformed churches today,

committed to the method

of

presuppositionalism is op-

e.g., exclusive psalmody,

defending the Christian faith

posed to a presentation

of

the

paedocommunion, contempo-

commonly called presupposi-

available evidence for biblical

rary worship preferences, this

tional apologetics.

is a serious accusation,

Briefly stated, this

and one that

if

true would

method insists that

as

the

expose the RPCUS to

holy Scriptures are the

the

just

charge

of

theo-

only foundation for human

logical narrowness,

knowledge and experi-

arrogance, and schism.

ence, our presentation

of

n this theologically

the faith mnst challenge

Christianity. Since our Con-

disjointed age, who are

the unbeliever to abandon his

fession does give evidences

we to elevate a pet

doctrine

to

rebellion and submit to the

for our Scriptures and

such a status? This charge

Scriptures before he can

worldview in the very first

can be answered by showing

understand even one fact

chapter,

it

cannot therefore

that presuppositional apolo-

correctly. The unbeliever

possibly countenance such a

getics, as

it

has been devel-

comes to the factual concIu-

view. Presuppositionalism has

oped in the 20th century

sions that he does because his

through the efforts of Dr.

presuppositions are what they

been caricatured as demand-

Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Greg

are. Accordingly, we must

ing that the unbeliever submit

Bahnsen, and its many other

call upon him to abandon his

to the Bible at the beginning

of

adherents, is a necessary

presuppositions

of

autonomy

the encounter without provid-

theological inference from the

and submit to Christ s Lord- ing him with any reasons for declarations

of

the Westmin-

ship in every area

of

life. We

so doing, and what is perhaps

ster Standards. f this

can

be

require all our officers, minis-

even worse, refusing to dis-

demonstrated, and I believe

it

ters, ruling elders, and dea-

cuss evidences for Christianity

can, then not only is the above

cons to subscribe to this view

with him at all. Of course, all

criticism against the RPCUS

of

our Standards. We

do

so

beginning students oflogic

and presuppositional apolo-

because we believe that this is

would spot a false dilemma

getics removed, but an implicit

the apologetic methodology here. Who ever said that

position

of

our Standards has

required

byfull

or strict presuppositionalism is op-

been clarified so that all her

subscription to the Westmin-

posed to a presentation

of

sons may defend her with

December 1999/January 2000

-THE

COUNSEL

ofChaicedon-19


2/14

greater understanding and

precision.

(3) Presuppositionalism is

difficult to define and even

more

difficult to master.

It

has

been criticized for being too

philosophical and logical, non

exegetical, and even non

experiential. All

presuppositionalists would

agree that Dr. Van Til wrote

for the philosophically minded,

was difficult to follow, and

utilized terminology that is

sometimes misunderstood

even by his sympathizers. We

do

not

believe that Dr. Van

Til's

admitted shortcomings as

a writer and systematizer

undermine the essential cor

rectness

of

his position.

In

the

last

10 years, the analysis

of

Van Til has taken great strides

through the efforts

of

Prof.

John Frame ofWestminster

Theological Seminary (West)

and

the

late Dr. Greg

Bahnsen. Through their

labors, Van Til 's own writings,

and especially the ministry of

the Southern California Center

for Christian Studies and

Bahnsen Theological Semi

nary, all Christians can under

stand and become comfortable

with this method of defending

the faith.

n

Overview

of

the

Present SUbject

Fully recognizing these

initial difficulties, the RPCUS

nonetheless maintains that the

doctrinal statements

of

the

Westminster Standards de > set

forth

by

theological implication

an apologetic methodology

that has come to be called

presuppositional We fully

recognize that prior to that

demonstration, we shall have

to delineate what we under

stand by presuppositional

apologetics

We will then

turn to our Confession, evalu

ate its relevant statements, and

determine

if

they support that

particular view.

n

this talk,

we shall limit our investigation

of

the Confession to Chapter

One, Of the Holy Scripture.

Section One: A Brief Over-

view of Presuppositional

Apologetics

Apologetics Defined

Apolo getics may

be

defined

as the defense of the Christian

faith against all competing

world and life views, whether

religious or secular? t is the

duty of every Christian, ac

cording to his station in life

and learning, to be ready to

give a defense for the claims

of

Jesus Christ and the gospel

1 Peter 3:15).

Presuppositionalists do not

generally draw a strict line

of

demarcation between apolo

getics, wituessing, or evange

lism. Presenting Christ de

mands a positive declaration

of

the good news

of

Christ's

saving person and work, and

usually involves debate,

philosophical, ethical, and

otherwise, between the op

posing sides and their compet

ingclaims.

Apologetics Informed by

Systematic Theology

Apologetic methodology

must be determined by the

20 -mE COUNSEL ofCbaIcedon -December,1999/Jannary,2000

demands of systematic theol

ogy.' We cannot adopt a

method

of

defending the

Christian faith that is contrary

to the specific claims of that

faith or undermines

it

as a

unified theological system.

Specifically, we must adopt a

method

of

defending the faith

that is consistent with the

Reformed faith, i.e., a Re

formed Apologetic. It is

because the Reformed Faith

alone has

an

essentially sound,

because biblical, theology that

it

alone has anything like a

sound, that is biblical, method

of

challenging the world

of

unbelief to repentance and

faith .... 4

Our concern throughout is

to indicate the nature

of

a truly

Protestant, that is, a Re

formed, apologetic. A Re

formed method of apologetics

must seek to vindicate the

Reformed life and world view

as Christianity come to its

own.

t

has already become

plain that this implies a refusal

to grant that any area or

aspect of reality, any fact or

any law of nature or

of

history

can be correctly interpreted

except

it

be seen in the light of

the main doctrines

of

Chris

tianity.5

Our Total Dependence upon

the Regenerating Work of

the Holy Spirit

We are completely depen

dent upon the regenerating

work

of

the Holy Spirit for

success in the apologetic

confrontation with unbelief.

Logic will not convert an


3/14

unbeliever. Reducing his

worldview to absurdity may

anger or frustrate him rather

than produce submission to

Jesus Christ. The fact that

apologetics does not always

result in the conversion of the

unbeliever, or that it takes

place between individuals who

hold radically contradictory

philosophies of life, does not

render it a useless enterprise.

For the Holy Spirit can and

often does enlighten and

regenerate through a humble

defense of the Christian faith

against the claims of unbelief

(cf. 2

Cor.

10:4,5).

Thus,

intellectual argument will not,

as such, convince and convert

the non-Christian. It takes the

regenerating power

of

the

Holy Spir it to do that. But as

in the case of preaching, so in

the case of apologetical

reasoning, the Holy Spirit may

use a medi te approach to the

minds and hearts

of

men. 6

Presuppositionalism does not

trust in rational arguments to

win the unbeliever t does

insist, however, that logical

biblical argumentation is

essential to loving God with

our mind, and that apologetics

must display submission to

Christ's epistemic Lordship by

giving a carefully reasoned

and thoroughly biblical pre

sentation of the faith.

A Distinctive Method of

Knowing

Christianity has a

revelational epistemology.

7

We self-consciously believe

that apart from submission to

.

the Word of God

it

is impos

sible to understand even one

fact correctly. The fear of

the Lord is the beginning of

wisdom (Prov. 1:7; cf. Ps.

36:9). Accordingly, because

the unbeliever rejects that

standard for knowing, he may

not be considered a sufficient

judge

of the evidences for the

truth of Christian theism. We

cannot appeal to the

unbeliever's logical ability,

emotional sensitivities, or

understanding of the world as

sufficient judges of the truth.

To affirm otherwise is to deny

the difference between man as

originally created and as he is

now through sin. t is also to

allow that the unbeliever is

basically correct in his ultimate

assumptions and methodology.

On the contrary, a truly Chris

tian apologetic does not allow

that the unbeliever is basically

correct

in

any area

of

his

interpretation. For the

moment it must suffice to have

shown how the apologist is

not only untrue to his own

doctrine of man as the crea

ture of God, but.also defeats

his own purpose if he appeals

to some form of the 'common

consciousness of man. A

biblical apologetic will insist

both at the beginning of the

apologetic confrontation and

at its conclusion, that

self

conscious submission of both

faith and reason to the Scrip

tures of the Old and New

Testament is the foundation of

all knowledge.

No Neutrality

n

Apologetics

Neutrality in apologetics is

impossible to achieve and

sinful to seek. We do

not ask

the unbeliever to be neutral in

assessing the legitimacy

of

the

truth claims of the Bible. This

would be rebellion against

Christ, to whose

word

all

must

submit without question. We

self-consciously, yet with great

love and humility, inform him

that unless he submits to the

Scripture's interpretation of

the facts, he will remain in his

darkness, not only

with re-

spect to heavenly truths, but

also with respect to science,

architecture, and morality.

Accordingly, we should not

layout all the facts for Chris

tianity and ask the unbeliever

to make a neutral,

unbiased

assessment of them.

Such

a

request is out

of

the question,

for the unbeliever's lack

of

neutrality is at the heart

of

his

. spiritual, ethical, and intellec

tual problem. His entire

worldview is professedly anti

Christian. He is not neutral

toward God, nor

indeed can

he be. He is at

war

with God.

Every method, the suppos

edly neutral one no less than

any other, presupposes

either

the truth or the falsity

of

Christian theism. 9 His very

foundations must therefore be

challenged with power and

authority ofholy Scripture.

The Reformed apologist

throws down the gauntlet and

challenges his opponent to a

duel of

life and death

from

the

December,1999/January,2000 THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon -21


4/14

start. He does

not

first travel

in the same direction and in

the same automobile with the

natural man for some distance

in order then to mildly suggest

to the driver that they ought

perhaps

to change their course

somewhat and follow a road

that goes at a different slant

from the one they are on. The

Reformed apologist knows

that

there

is

but

one way to

the truth and that the natural

man is traveling it, but in the

wrong direction. 10

t is intellectually dishonest

to seek neutrality in apologet

ics. We do not walk with the

unbeliever halfway down the

road

of

autonomous logic and

experience, encourage

him

to

grant the possibility

of

a god,

and then switch the tables on

him and tell him that the god

of autonomous human reason

ing is the God

of

the Bible.

To do so

is

to admit that the

unbeliever's methodology,

epistemology, and use of

logic, I.e., his basic outlook on

life, are correct. This is

destructive of our own posi

tion and unfair to him. At no

time can the believer allow the

unbeliever to forget that he is

God s

creature, wholly depen

dent

upon God

for knowledge,

yet

alienated from God

through unbelief and inten

tional self-deception. This

methodology may seem hope

lessly biblicistic, but it is the

only one that is consistent with

our revelational faith and will

challenge unbelief in its last

places

of

refuge.

The charge has been'made

that it is an a priori procedure

to bring in God at the begin

ning

of

the process of knowl

edge. This too is a charge '

that acts as a boomerang. A

priori reasoning is reasoning

that does not start with the

facts. Now anti theism has

arbitrarily taken for granted

that God is not a fact, and that

if he is a fact that does not

have any bearing upon the

other facts. This we must

hold to

be an a priori proce

dure. We hold that the so

called facts are unintelligible

unless the supreme fact of

God be brought into relation

withthem.H

Reasoning in a Circle?

, Presuppositionalists insist

that reasoning in a circle that

begins and ends with God's

revelation is the only way of

knowing and thinking that

recognizes our creaturely

dependence upon God s

complete and perfect knowl

edge, avoids reasoning upon

the autonomous foundations of

human reason and experience,

and properly challenges the

unbeliever in his stronghold of

unbelief. Does good evidence

exist for our position? Incon

trovertible evidence. Should

we present it? Absolutely.

However, it must also be

recognized by the Christian

apologist that we cannot begin

on the foundations of the

unbeliever and conclude with

the triune God

of

Scripture.

His foundations are anti

Christian and his methodology,

22 THE

COUNSEL

ofChaIcedon -December 1999/JanuarY 2000

i consistently followed, is

antithetical to biblical Chris

tianity.

Common Ground with

the

Unbeliever

Common ground with the

unbeliever is found not in any

supposed area

of

neutrality in

which the unbeliever is open

toGod or basically correct,

but in the fact that despite sin,

the unbeliever is the image of

God. Because the unbeliever

is who God says he is and not

who he says he is, he remains

accessible to the presentation

of

the good news. He is a '

prodigal who knows his

Father 's voice but continually

suppresses it in unbelief and

rebellion (Rom. 1:18,19).

Biblical ajJolo getics must'

always do justice to the

objective clarity, universality,

and inescapability of natural

revelation. All men in Adam

heard the voice

of

thetr Fa

ther. All men have an inner

sense

of

deity. All men with

out exception suppress that

truth in order to preserve their

autonomy and independence

from God. The goal of apolo

getics, then, is to tear the

iron mask off the unbeliever,

to expose his self-delllsion as

an act

of

unbelief and rebel

lion, to challenge the foolish

ness of his espoused

worldview,

and

to call upon

him to return to his Father in

faith and repentance.

t is assured of a

point

of

contact in the fact that every

man is made in the image

of

God and has impressed upon


5/14

him the law of God. In that

fact alone he may rest secure

with respect to the point

of

contact problem. For that

fact makes all men always

accessible to God. That fact

assnres us that every man, to

be a man at all, must already

be in contact with the truth.

He is so much in contact with

the trnth that mnch of his

energy is spent in the vain

effort to hide this fact from

himself. His efforts to hide

this fact from himself are

bound to be self-frustrative.

2

A Conflict

of World

views

The debate between Chris-

. tianity and all unbelieving

religions and philosophies

must be

waged

primarily at the

worldview.level. The reason

for this is that all facts of

whatever variety are inter

preted in the light of the

worldview espoused by the

individual in question. These

worldviews and their presup

positions are held

a priori

that is, prior to an examination

of the facts. They are the

grid through which the facts

are selected, counted, mea

sured, and interpreted.

Whether one calls this the

heart of man, as Scripture

does, or his interpretive

framework, it all amounts to

the same thing. Man inter

prets the facts the way he

does because his heart is in

the condition that it is. Ac

cordingly, the debate between

Christianity and unbelieving

philosophies oflife are not

chiefly about isolated facts,

it

is rather about the system r

worldview through which the

facts are determined and

interpreted. The goal of

Christian apologetics is to give

a direct assault upon unbelief,

not only at specific points,

i.e., the resurrection of Christ,

but also upon the unbeliever's

citadel, his worldview or

philosophy

of

life. We must

call upon the unbeliever to

repentance not just at a few

isolated points but in every

area

of

his thinking and living.

If there is no head-on colli

sion with the systems of

the

natural man there will be no

point of contact with the sense

of deity in the natural man.

13

What Is t

to Reason

by

Presupposition?

Presuppositional apologet

ics is an

indirect

method for

defending the faith. I t s

indirect because in defending

the

faith, we must focus upon

a comparison

of

worldviews

with the unbeliever. For

purposes

of

clarification, to

reason

directly

with the

unbeliever would be possible

only if we were to suppose

that the differences between

us were merely matters of

historical factuality. This is

not the case. We differ with

the unbeliever about the facts

because of mutually exclusive

controlling assumptions. In

short, we have radically

different philosophies

of

fact.

Apologetics, therefore, to

be

successful, must descend to

the level

of

comparing and

critiquing worldviews. The

differences between us will

not be resolved by haggling

over the facts. The issue

between believers and non

believers in Christian theism

cannot be settled by a

direct

appeal to 'facts'

or 'laws'

intelligible. The question is

rather as to what is the final

reference-point required to

make the 'facts' and 'laws'

intelligible. 14

In speaking with the unbe

liever, we will honestly inform

him that our methodology is

controlled by our governing

set

of

presuppositions, namely,

the existence of the triune God

of Scripture, the truth of his

revelation, and the necessity

for all creatures to

think

and

live in terms of it. We wil l

then explain how he too

operates in terms

of

governing

presuppositions which he has

granted a status of revisionary

immunity. We will then hum

bly invite him to compare

worldviews.

The

purpose of

this comparison is specific.

The Christian must stand with

the unbeliever on the

unbeliever's espoused presup

positions for the purpose of

showing the foolishness, i.e.,

destructiveness,

of

his

worldview. This is the nega

tive side

of

apologetics.

hI contradistinction from

this, the Reformed apologist

will point out again and again

that the only method that will

lead to the truth in any field is

that method which recognizes

the fact that man is a creature

of

God, that he must therefore

December,1999/January,2000 -THE

COUNSEL

ofCbalcedon -23


6/14

seek to think God's thoughts

and above all the nature of formation to occur only

after him. It is not as though

man himself, to appear for through the power

of

God's

the Reformed apologist should

what they really are. Chris-

voice speaking through a

not interest himself in the

tianity is the source from

consistently biblical presenta-

nature of the non-Christiart's

which both life and light derive

tionof

the gospel.

method.

On

the contrary he

for men. 16 Apart from the

I t

is the weakness of the

should make a critical analysis existence and activities

of

the Roman Catholic and the

of it

He

should, as it were,

Triune God of the Bible,

Arminian methods that they

join his friend in the use

of

it.

science, which depends upon

virtually identify objective

But he should do so self-

the uniformity of nature,

validity with subjective ac-

consciously with the purpose

morality, which requires a

ceptability to the natural man.

of showing that its most

universal standard of justice,

Distingnishing carefully be-

consistent application not

and knowledge itself, is ren-

tween these two, the Re-

merely leads away from

dered impossible. All unbelief

formed apologist maintains

Christian theism but in leading

destroys the preconditions for

that there is an absolutely

away from Christian theism

knowledge, morality, and

valid argument for the exist-

leads

to destruction

of

reason

human experience (cf. I Cor.

ence

of

God and for the truth

and science as well.15

1:18). The unbeliever will

of Christian theism. He

The Transcendental

continue pursuing these, and

cannot do less without virtu-

Argument

for the

Existence

through the common opera-

ally admitting that God's

tions

of

God's Spirit, arrive at

of the

Triune God

some truth,

but only because

revelation to man is not clear.

of

the

Bible

Christianity is true and his

I t is fatal for the Reformed

There is an absolutely

espoused philosophy what-

apologist

to

admit that man

certain

proof

for the existence

ever that

maybe isfalse.

has done justice to the objec-

of

God:

the

impossibility

of

the

Moreover, through his com-

tive evidence

i f

he comes to

contrary. That is,

mon goodness to all men, God

any other conclusion than that

presuppositionalists argue that keeps the unbeliever from

of the

truth

of

Christian the-

the supposition of the absolute being consistent with his

ism.

truth

of

Christian theism is the principles

of

unbelief. The Reformed preacher

foundation for all knowledge,

Itis

imperative, when we

does not tone down his mes-

religious, scientific, and philo-

speak of certainty, to dis tin-

sage in order that

it

may find

sophical. t alone provides for

guish between what is psycho-

acceptance with the natural

the preconditions for knowl-

logically acceptable to the

man. He does not say that his

edge, logic, and predication in

unbeliever from what is ratio-

message is less certainly true

any and all areas of human

nally and biblically defensible.

because of its nonacceptance

inquiry. This is the transcen-

Just because the unbeliever

by the natural man. The

dental challenge

of

the gospel.

doesn t

appreciate our abso- natural man is, by virtue

of

his

Biblical Christianity is abso-

lutistic, biblicistic approach is

creation in the image of

God,

lutely and undeniably true,

not a sufficient reason to

always accessible to the truth;

philosophically, religiously,

abandon it.

f

he unbeliever

accessible

to

the penetration

and experientially, because

is consisteIit with his own

of

the truth by the Spirit of

without it, you could not

principles, he is not going to

God. Apologetics, like sys-

prove anything else. Chris-

like the gospel (cf.

1

Cor.

tematics, is valuable to the

tianity then must present itself

1:18-25).

The Holy Spirit

precise extent that

it

presses

as the light that makes the

must change his taste buds,

the truth upon the attention of

facts

of

human experience,

and

we

can expect that trans-

the natural man. The natural

24 -mE COUNSEL ofChalcedon -December 1999/January 2000


7/14

,TIan

,TIust

be blasted out of his

hideouts, his caves, his last

lurking placesY

Negative Apologetics

The wisdom

of

this world,

in all forms, is demonstrably

foolish, i.e., incorrect, self

refuting, and destructive to

man and society (cf. 1 Cor.

1:18). There is no wisdom or

counsel against Jehovah.

Accordingly, Christian apolo

getics does not allow that

other religions or worldviews

are basically correct - need

ing only

to

add a little Jesus

to the mix. They are incorrect

both in their foundations, in

their interpretation of the

facts, and in their philosophy

offact. This is why

presuppositional apologetics

engages in what may be called

negative or destructive apolo

getics.

We

must answer the

fool according to his folly, to

utilize a biblical paradigm for

dealing with fools (cf. Provo

26:4,5; Acts 17:22-31). We

must show the unbeliever what

the world would be like if his

worldview were truth, thereby

exposing its weakness, con

tradictions, and devastating

outcomes. Whereas negativity

may not be popular in our

postmodern culture, it is

absolutely essential to a

complete presentation of the

gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christian-

Theistic Evi

dences

What place do evidences

play in presuppositional

apologetics? Should we

debate the historicity

of

the

resurrection and the latest

archaeological finds? Critics

of

presuppositionalism often

charge

it

with fideism, a leap

of irrationality or mysticism

into unproven assumptions and

conclusions. In response to

this, presuppositionalists posit

that facts and interpretation

of

facts cannot be sepa-

rated. 18

We

must discuss the

historical veracity of Chris

tianity. As we do, however,

we must not forget that the

unbeliever has a

presuppositional bias against

Christianity that causes him to

reinterpret and twist the

facts. Facts are identified,

allowed, catalogued, and

interpreted according to

worldview commitments. This

observation leads us to the

heart

of

the matter with the

unbeliever. We must deter

mine which worldview pro

vides a foundation for the

interpretation

of

the facts.

In

the final analysis,

presuppositional apologetics

and Christian evidences are

not contradictory at all. They

are both part of the arsenal

through which Christ is build

ing his Church. Every fact in

the universe has been created

by God and proves the truth

of

Christian-theism. We can

begin with any fact, any

evidence, and from there show

that God and his revelation

are necessary in order to

conceive

of

it correctly, and

that apart from God's inter

pretation, human rationality

and experience are themselves

unintelligible.

Section 2:

Apologetics

and

the Westminster

Doctrine

of

Scripture

Does the Westminster

Confession of Faith require

the apologetic methodology

briefly outlined in the preced

ing sections? To answer

that

question, we shall consider

only Chapter One,

f

the

Holy Scripture.

It is

in this

chapter more than anywhere

else in the Confession that the

distinctiveness of the Re

formed and biblical worldview

is presented, and in

which

we

shall find the greatest number

of

statements respecting

biblical apologetics. In par

ticular,

it

will be seen that the

epistemology

of

the Westmin

ster Confession

of

Faith is

strictly revelational. Accord

ingly, the apologetic method

based upon that Confession

must be revelation as well,

i.e., in strict conformity to

the

clarity, authority, and all

sufficiency of the Scriptures of

the Old and New Testa

ments.

'9

The

Reality

and

Trustwor

thiness of Natural Revela

tion

God reveals himself clearly

t every man in nature and

providence.

In the opening lines

of

section

1,

the Confession

makes an extremely important

affirmation, the denial

of

which

undermines every aspect

of

the Christian message. All

men live in the environment

of

revelation. Every fact in the

universe affords conclusive

December,1999iJanuary,2000 -THE

COUNSEL

ofChaicedon -25


8/14

vivid, and immediate proo

(1) Any view of man that

with unbelievers,

we

are

of

the existence and nature

of

assumes his natural ignorance

dealing with men whose very

God. All men, therefore,

of

God, or that man lacks

environment is the revelation

know

God.

By

the phrase

sufficient proof to believe in

of God, both within in their

light

of

nature, we should

God denies the biblical evi-

hearts and without in their

understand two things: First,

dence and

is

a cloak for man's

world. When we speak to

Paul

speaks

of

a revelation

of

subsequent rebellion against

them

of

God, we are

not

God within man's very being

God and his copious revela-

speaking in a unknown lan-

(cf. Rom. 1:19; 2:14,15).

tion. Man did not emerge

guage but of the truth they

God made man in his image

from his cave

of

confusion

know and against which they

and instilled within him a sense

(Plato) to awareness and

rebel each day. There is not a

of deity, a full conviction

of

development. He came forth

single neutral person upon

the

existence

of

God and

of

from the hand

of

his Maker

the face of the whole earth.

man's total accountability to

fully formed, cognizant of

One either responds to the

him. This conviction is innate

God, and aware

of

his

placein

revelation of God's glory

or

immediate.

t

does

not

require deductive reasoning or

the universe. Man does not

within and without in faith,

need additional evidence to

wonder, awe, repentance, and

additional proof. God instilled believe in God; he requires obedience, or rebels in forget-

this conviction in every man.

Adam came into this world

regeneration so that he can

fulness, deception, and cor-

knowing he was God's crea-

see the evidences all around

ruption. When dealing with

tute,

that he owed his life to

him

the unbeliever, therefore, we

him, and that he must live for

(2) Moreover, any proofs

are not speaking with a poor,

the

honor and glory

of

his

for God that conclude God

misguided soul who has done

Maker. Then, there is an

probably or likely

exists

as good as could be expected

objective revelation of God in compromise the faith and deny

given the circumstances.

We

creation and providence. The

the express statements of

are confronting a rebel who

Psalmist writes that the

Scripture. This is one

of

the

has willfully closed his mind to

heavens declare the glory

of

problems with the traditional

the truth of God's existence

God, a glory which confronts

proofs for God's existence:

and his glory that confront him

all peoples upon the earth (Ps.

the argument for an uncaused

every moment in his own heart

19: 1-3). The providence of

First Cause (cosmological),

and in the world about him.

God is

the manner by which

the argument from an original Natural revelation reveals

God upholds, directs, dis-

Designer (teleological), and God s goodness, wisdom,

poses, and governs all crea-

the argument from the neces- and power.

tures, actions, and things, from

sity

of

a being like God (onto-

God's revelation in nature

the

greatest even

to

the least

logical). Because their tradi-

and providence reveal some

(WCF 5:1). In surveying and

tional formulation does not

analyzing the facts

of

the

rest

upon the express declara- specific things about God's

created order, every man is

character. Specifically,

it

immediately and knowingly

tions

of

Scripture, they inevi-

declares God's goodness,

confronted with the reality

of

tably conclude that a God

wisdom, and power.

In

God's

existence and learns

likely exists. God's revela-

witnessing to the men of

certain things of God's at-

tion in man and in nature is not

Lystra, Paul noted that grain,

tributes or nature. A biblical

defective or unclear.

It

gives

good harvests, food, and

understanding of the light

of

certain and objective knowl-

gladness are witnesses

of

nature leads us to three

edge

of

God.

God's goodness to mankind

fundamental observations.

(3)

n

all our discussions (Acts 14:17). David writes

26 -THE

COUNSEL

o

Chalcedou

-Decemher,1999/January,2OO l


9/14

that the heavens display the

ful witnesses to his Creator, he

ever so diligent to frame their

handiwork

of

God, the

lives in unbelief, denial, and lives according to the light

of

depths

of

the divine wisdom

deception. Paul calls this

nature, and the law

of

that

that planned, created, and

suppressing the truth in

religion they do profess; and

governs this vast universe (Ps.

unrighteousness (Rom. 1:19).

to assert and maintain that

19:1). Paul wrote

to

the

Though in his heart and

they may, is very pernicious,

Romans that the power of

through nature every man

and to be detested (cf.

God is revealed in the creation knows that God exists, and Larger Catechism Question

of

the universe (Rom. 1:20).

that he owes his life to him, he #60). Paul addresses himself

The point of all these declara- convinces himself that he does

to his point in 1 Corinthians

tions

of

Scripture is that

not believe

it

and denies the 1:21. There he writes

thatthe

natural revelation, whether in truth. This self-deception and wisdom

of

man cannot attain

the gifts

of

God, intricacies

of

denial are vain, desperate to the wisdom of God, i.e., a

nature, or the display

of

his

efforts to silence a screaming

right knowledge of him. To

awesome power in the hurri- conscience and subvert a

the natural man, the things

of

cane, thunderstorm and tor- certain judgment.

God are foolishness

1

Cor.

nado testifies not of a nebu-

The

Negative Function of

2:

13,14). Only the Spirit

of

lous deity,

but

to the existence

Natural

Revelation

Today God can lead men to right

and glory of the triune God

Natural revelation is not

conceptions

of

God, his will

who created the universe and for our lives, and saving faith

calls all men to love, worship,

sufficient to give man a saving

in

the Lord Jesus Christ. We

and obey him.

knowledge

of

God. When we

are thus

led

to see the need

Natural revelation leaves

speak

of

the insufficiency

of

for special, redemptive revela-

natural revelation, we do not

men without excuse for

imply any defect in God's

tion if we are to find the way

their impiety

revelation.

It

is clear and

out

of

our sin-produced

blindness and recover the

Because of sin, however, sufficient to accomplish its

purpose

of

our existence,

the natural man (the unregen-

purpose to give witness to

understanding

of

the universe,

erate man) refuses

to

bow to all men

of

God's goodness

and fellowship with our

the revelation

of

God in nature and to deprive them

of

all

Maker.

and providence. t

no

longer excuse for rebellion against

The Necessity

of Scripture

leads him to right

or

pious

God.

t

does not, however,

views of God. This is not due

reveal the grace

of

God but

to Know God

and his

World

to a defect in God's revelation

his wrath against sin. Sin n so stating, our Confes-

but to rebellion in man. The leads man to misinterpret sion repudiates natural theol-

light

of

nature, therefore,

God's clear revelation and ogy. We must distinguish

though designed to lead men pervert the know ledge

of

God natural revelation from natural

to love and obey his Creator,

revealed therein (cf. Rom.

theology. Natural theology

condemns him for his impiety 1:2lff.). Accordingly, it is maintains that fallen man is still

and unbelief. This

is

the impossible to arrive at correct quite capable

of

formulating

primary purpose

of

natural views

of

God and man from essentially correct views of

revelation after the

al l

to nature alone. As our Confes- God and the universe apart

leave man with no excuse for sion states

in

chapter 10, from special or redemptive

his unbelief (Acts 14:17; section 4: Much less can revelation. Its concern is to

17:27f.; Rom. 1:20,32). men not professing the Chris-

do justice

to

the knowledge

Though man is surrounded tian religion be saved in any

that the unbeliever actually

with ample, clear, and power- other way whatsoever, be they possesses. Historically,

December,1999/January,2000 THE

COUNSEL

ofChaicedon 27


10/14

natural theology gave rise to

the medieval philosophy that

man's intellect still functions

accnrately in the realm of

natnre

or

science. Its final

fruit was the philosophy of

Immanuel Kant, who relegated

theology

tothe

unverifiable

realm

offaith

(noumenal) and

left

this world to the experts

in science (phenomenal). The

major flaw with natnral theol

ogy is its failure to come to

terms with the devastating

impact

of

sin upon man intel

lectnally, ethically, and psy

chologically. Scripture is

clear.

The

fallen man is dead

in every way (cf. Ephesians

2: 1). Regeneration and the

Bible are absolutely necessary

to restore

man's

ability not

only to believe

in

God but also

to interpret natnre correctly.

This

is

why, for example, we

differ with Arminianism's

evangelistic method and goal.

We

do

not

lay

all the facts for

God and Christianity on the

table and ask the unbeliever to

make

an unbiased decision.

The unbeliever is incapable

of

neutrality. Until regenerated

by the Holy Spirit, he will

always judge negatively of

God's

claims upon his life. He

does so in the interest of

preserving his unbelief, pet

ideas, and secnrity. Calvin's

comments are particularly

vivid and helpful on this point.

It is therefore in vain that so

many bnrning lamps shine for

us in the workmanship

of

the

universe to show forth the

glory

of

its Author. Although

they bathe us wholly in their

radiance, yet they

can

of

themselves in no way lead us

into the right path ... we have

not the eyes to see this unless

they be illumined by the inner

revelation

of

God through

faith .... Just as old or bleary

eyed men and those with weak

vision,

if

you thrust before

them a most beautiful volume,

even if they recognize

it

to be

some sort

of

writing, yet can

scarcely construe two words,

but with the aid of spectacles

will begin to read distinctly; so

Scripture, gathering up the

otherwise confused knowledge

of God in onr minds, having

dispersed onr dullness, clearly

shows us the true God.

Institutes o the Christian

Religion

1:5:14; 1:6:1)

Tbe Self-Attesting Author

ity of

Scripture

In Section 4, the Divines

affirm the self-attesting au

thorityof

the Scriptnres. This

means that the Bible carries its

own authority.

We

do not

look to any person or institu

tion beyond or higher than the

Bible to affirm or establish its

authority. Nor do we ground

the authority

of

the Bible on

the results of archaeology and

higher criticism, personal

satisfaction, or logic.

o

do

so

is

to subject the voice of

the living and true God to the

opinions and decisions of

fallen and deceptive men.

This is always destructive.

The Bible is the inspired Word

of

God.

He

is truth. What

ever he says is true simply

because he says it. There is

28

TIlE

COUNSEL ofCbalcedon -December,1999/January,2000

no higher authority or stan

dard

of

truththan his thoughts.

Moreover, God has now

committed his will wholly unto

writing. We must therefore

turn by faith to the Scriptnres

of God to establish their

authority, or we shall overtnrn

the objective authority

of

the

Scriptures from the outset of

onr theology and Christian

experience.

We

cannot deny

or bypass onr ultimate author

ity in order

to

establish it.

Critics of the Bible will,

of

conrse, classify this position

as hopelessly circular and

utterly unscientific. Why do

you believe the Bible, they

ask. Because the Bible is the

Word of God, the Christian

responds. How do you

know that the Bible is the

Word

of

God, they continue.

Because the Bible says so,

is the Christian's humble

answer. At this point, the

critic will demand some justifi

cation for this apparently

circular argument.

First , the Christian does not

reason this way in spite

of

the

evidence. This position is

where all the available evi

dence powerfully leads him.

We

are logically entitled to

respond because the Bible

says so,

if

the reasons given

in the Bible are sufficient to

establish the conclusion.

Does the Bible evidence itself

to

be the

Word

of

God?

Absolutely. Is the Word of

God our ultimate authority?

Definitely. Has God perma

nently inscribed his Word in


11/14

our Old and New Testaments?

That the teaching of Scrip

ture. Must we therefore go to

that ultimate authority to

establish the authority

of

Scripture? Yes. The conclu

sion follows incontrovertibly

from the premises. If we do

not, then we are denying our

ultimate authority in order to

establish it.

The Christian gladly rea

sons in the circle of

the crea-

ture Because we are crea

tures, we must reason within

the revealed parameters

established for us by our

Creator and Savior. To go

outside his Word to vindicate

or establish the authority of his

Word would be the height of

ingratitude for his saving

mercies and kindness to us,

and would in fact exhibit a

treasonous spirit against the

God

of

the universe. We

worship our God as he com

mands when we give his word

unquestioning allegiance

and obedience

Remember,

we must not put the Lord our

God or his Word to the test.

The Christian is in the same

position as adherents of other

religions and philosophies.

Because we are creatures, we

must reason in a circle. Let

me demonstrate this with an

early form of Rationalism.

t

was affirmed by some philosoc

phers (e.g., Descartes) that

because man s perception of

reality is uureliable, absolute

truth or certainly can only be

established through reason.

But how was this principle

discovered? How was

it

determined that experience or

sensory perception are uureli

able?

f

you respond, Be

cause my experience reveals

this to me, then you have

essentially denied your com

mitment to reason in order to

vindicate it. Is

it

really logical

or safe to trust your senses

enough to disprove their

reliability?

f

you respond,

This is the conclusion to

which I have been brought by

the use of my reason, logic,

and reflections, then you

have essentially argued in a

circle.

You

have vindicated

the authority

of

reason by the

use

of

unaided reason. In

reality, the non-Christian is

forced to reason in a

vicious

circle. He has nothing

at

all to

vindicate his starting point and

ultimate authority except

fallible reason or disputable

experience. The Christian.

does reason in a circle, but

it

is the circle of submission to

the omniscient, sovereign, and

all-wise Creator-God

of

the

universe.

The Christian views logic

and science, moreover, in a

fundamentally different manner

than the unbeliever. Logic and

science are not the ultimate

determiners

of

truth. Commit

ment to the scientific method

as the test of truth is itself a

faith commitment. The scien

tific method cannot be verified

by its own criteria. t cannot

be observed, catalogued,

repeated, and verified under

normal laboratory conditions.

More to the point, any view or

application of science at logic

that disregards the authority of

God's Word is unacceptable

and ultimately destructive

of

rationality and science. All

such methods are utterly

prejudicial and unscientific.

They do not take into account

all the facts and have arbi

trarily excluded certain facts,

namely a Creator-God and his

all-sufficient Word, from the

outset of the scientific en

deavor. We must submit our

logical principles, just l ike

every other human inquiry, to

the will of God in Scripture.

He is the source

of

all wisdom

and knowledge (cf. Provo 1:7;

Col. 3:3-8). In His light we

see light (Ps. 36:9).

A Philosophy of Evidences

The Place

of

Evidences in

Defending

the uthority

of Scripture

In

section 5,

the

Westmin

ster Divines affirm that abun

dant evidence exists to sup

port the Bible's claims that it

is the inspired Word of God

and therefore binding upon

our faith and life. While

God's Word is authoritative

simply because God has said

it, his Word provides ample

reasons for us to place

ourselves willingly under its

authority. Therefore, we do

not ask men to believe and

obey the Bible contrary to all

the available evidence or

without sufficient evidence.

Copious evidence abounds to

support all our claims. I think

it

will be seen, however, that

in the minds of the Divines

December,1999/January,2000 THE

COUNSEL

of Chalcedon 9


12/14

these evidences are primarily

The Insufficiency

o

is required before a man can

for

Christians those whom

External Evidences or

embrace the truth of Scrip-

God gives the spiritual sight to

the Authority o Scripture tures (cf. Eph. 4:23; Col.

see

the glorious truths and

Section 5 declares that

3:10). Man needs something

excellencies

of

Scripture.

evidences alone are insuffi-

more than evidence, however

Those whose hearts have been

cient to convince men

of

the

abundant, to persuade and

transformed

by

the gospel are infallibility and authority of the enable him to believe and

enabled

to see the glory

of

the

Scriptures. This does not

obey God's Word; he needs

Scriptures and find in them

undermine the value of evi-

the work of the Holy Spirit

more than sufficient evidence dences. They are sufficient to

accompanying the word. 20

of

their divine origin and

demonstrate that the Bible is

210). The Holy Spirit must

infallibility. Evidences are

the

Word

of

God. Yet unbe-

work through the evidences

primarily to buttress the faith

lieving men will not accept

presented, or a saving convic-

of God's

people against the

them. Why? We must re-

tion of the truth of God's

Word will never result. Does

attacks and criticisms of

member that evidences are

this mean that we should not

unbelievers. Christians need

always received and inter-

give evidences? Shouldn't we

not fear that their faith lacks

preted according to the

credible support. On the

worldview of the individual

just

let go and let God do

viewing them. For the unbe-

his work? No. The Spirit

contrary, the Scriptures are

works this conviction through

filled with so many proofs

of

liever, because he cannot see

the

word primarily through

the truth or legitimacy

of

the

their heavenly source that only

evidences provided by the

the preaching

of

the Word.

a

blind

man

can

fail to see

Therefore, we must

them.

These

evidences pro-

Scriptures, he refuses to

unashamedly and courageously

submit himself to them. He

vide great comfort and cour-

does not reject the infallibility

use the Word

of

God in all our

age for

the

believer to resist

defenses of Scripture's claims

evil and defend the faith

of

and authority

of

Scripture due

and efforts to disciple thisto a lack

of

sufficient evi-

God against all the assaults

of

dence, however, but because

world to Christ. While the

men. We should also note

the ethical state

of

his heart

evidences alone will not lead

that it

is

certainly legitimate to

rebels against the evidence.

It

man to a right knowledge of

use these evidences with the

is in his own interest as an

the Bible, it is through them

unbeliever in defending the

unbeliever to reject and

that the Spirit works repen-

fai th (cf. 1 Pet. 3: 15). Until

reinterpret the evidence.

tance and creates saving faith.

regenerated,

he

will

not

ac-

Moreover, sin has blinded all

The

Quest for

Certainty

cept them and will certainly

men, There is none who seek

Can we known for sure that

seek

to weaken their force,

after God

or truth (cf. Rom.

our Scriptures are the Word

but

it

is often through a loving, 3: 10-18). All men come forth

of

God? The Divines answer

humble, and persevering

from the womb, unless regen-

affirmatively in Section

5.

presentation

of

the evidences

erated by God's Spirit, sup-

They maintain that a full

for the truth of the Christian

pressing or holding down the

persuasion and assurance of

worldview and

of

the infallibil-

truth in unrighteousness. This

the infallible truth and divine

ity

of the

Scriptures in particu-

paragraph rightly insists,

authority of the holy Scrip-

lar, that the Lord removes the

therefore, that regeneration

tures are available for man.

spiritual blinders from the

a supernatural act

of

God's This certainty, however, is not

unbeliever and creates saving

Spirit whereby man's heart is to be sought nor can

it

be

faith in his Son and Word.

renewed through Jesus Christ, attained through autonomous

30

-TIlE

COUNSEL

ofCbalcedon

December 1999/January 2000


13/14

human reason, the scientific gation based upon human epistemology of the Westmin-

method, or human experience. autonomy and sufficiency. ster Confession of Faith is

It is a work of God's Spirit in

The Divines self-consciously strictly revelational. This can

the heart

of

man, whereby the

rejected this methodology, and

be seen from its insistence

Spirit brings conviction that

affirmed that the Scriptures

upon the universality and

the Bible is the infallible and

are absolutely true and objec-

clarity of natural revelation, its

completely authoritative word

tively certain apart from man s rejection

of

natural theology

of God. He does not accom-

recognition or approval.

and insistence upon special

plish this work by mystical

Accordingly, evidences for the

revelation in order to know

insight or additional revelation.

Bible s authority and certainty

God and his world correctly,

Through the illuminating power

are useful primarily to believ-

its affirmation of belief in the

of the Word, he opens our

ers, whose eyes have been

self-attesting authority of

eyes to the truth and nature of

opened by the regenerating

Scripture, and its philosophy

the Bible as God's own word .

power of God s Spirit. Until

of the use of evidences in

He takes away our inordinate

the Spirit performs this work

defending that authority. In

rebellion against God and

in us, all the evidences in the

each

of

these areas,

the

subdues our hearts to teach-

world cannot convince us of

doctrinal system of the West-

ableness.

the certainty of Scripture nor

minster Confession is clearly

t is here that the

persuade us to submit to it.

presupposition i

in its ap-

presuppositional nature

of

our

Properly understood and

proach to truth and defending

Standards is readily apparent.

applied, this teaching of our

the faith. We must submit to

God and his Word to under-

According to the Divines,

Confession requires us to

stand even one fact correctly.

Scripture has an objective

forsake popular methods of

authority and existence apart

apologetics that grant the

While proponents of other

from any human recognition of

legitimacy ofthe unbeliever s

apologetical schools may sti ll

it. Even if a man refuses to

methodology and evaluation of

profess allegiance to our

yield to the abundant evidence the facts and adopt the

Confession, apologetical

for the infallibility and author-

presuppositional method

methods that compromises the

ity of the Bible, nevertheless

outlined in this paper. The

objective clarity and truth of

the Scriptures are absolutely

unbeliever s problem is not a

biblical Christianity, stress the

true and certain. They are the

lack of facts; he lacks the

probability of the evidences,

foundation for knowing, and

necessary spiritual vision to

view the fallen man as a

the source of certainty. Sadly,

see the facts for what they

sufficient judge of the evi-

popular approaches to apolo-

truly are.

We

must challenge

dences for Christianity, and

getics compromise the cer-

the unbeliever s philosophy of

encourage a more neutral

tainty and objectivity of the

fact, his worldview or his

approach to Christian defense,

Bible at exactly this point. t

presuppositions. Until these

depart from our Standards

is not uncommon to hear the

are changed through the

and compromise the gospel

of

claim that no one can prove

regenerating work of the

Jesus Christ. We believe all

that the Bible is absolutely

Spirit, he will always reject

such approaches undermine

true.

21

This is correct,

Scripture, God, and the

the challenge of the gospel

however, only if we assume

and leave the unbeliever with

that the Bible is a book with

gospel.

ample reason not to repent

authority only when individuals

onclusion

and believe the gospel.

recognize that authority, or

Much more could be said

This has been but an begin-

when we adopt a methodology

about chapter 1 but even this

ning

of

the defense

of

the

oflogical and scientific investi-

brief survey reveals that the

RPCUS conviction that strict

December,1999/January,2000.TIlECOUNSELofCbalcedon.31


14/14

subscription to the system of

truth set forth

in

the Westmin- .

ster Confession of Faith

demands a presuppositional

apologetic. We humbly offer

this opinion with reverence for

our Standards, respect for

those who disagree with us,

and a sincere conviction that

we can

reach the unbeliever

effectively for Jesus Christ

only as we build upon our

foundation and call upon the

unbeliever to abandon his

autonomy and return to his

Creator-God.

IAll citations in this brief

overview are from the works

of

Cornelius Van Til.

2Apologetics (Nutley, NJ:

Presbyterian and Reformed,

1976),

p.

1

3The Defense

of

the Faith

(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian

and

Reformed,

1967), p. 4

4Towards a Reformed

Apologetic (Philadelphia:

Privately Printed, 1972), p.

1

5The Defense

of

the

Faith

p.

96

6A

Christian Theory of

Knowledge (Philadelphia:

Presbyterian and Reformed,

1969),

p.

19

7A

Survey

of

Christian

Epistemology (Ripon, Cali

fornia: den Dulk Christian

Foundation, 1969), p. 1

8The Defense

of the

Faith

p.

84

9The

Defense of the

Faith

p.

100

IOIbid. p. 113

Non-Profit Org.

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit # 1553

Greenville,

SC

29602

Ilk lSL: t L \ k \\ \ (HI r tn 111111 L : 1 he, 11111 It- \ I )1I T d L L Is l)e) l ) 11 111\\ l r, t L l lL \\ \ r

Jll

r

suhSCtIPrJ{)lltll)\\ ; ' ; l l p r d . l r ~ " h u . ' ; 1 l 1 1 l 1 1 . ' ; \ \ j r h

l r \ \ (

1lllnk lCIU

llA Survey of Christian

Epistemology p. 202

12Ibid. pp.

94,95

13Ibid.

p. 99

14Ibid. p.

100

15Ibid.

p. 102

16Ibid.

p. 69

17Ibid.

p. 104

18Christian-Theistic

Evidences (Philadelphia:

Westminster Theological

Seminary, Unpublished Class

Syllabus, 1961), p. i

19The reader will do

well

o

remember that

as

systematic

theology must inform our

apologetic methodology, and

as apologetics is concerned

with the defense of the entire

Christian system and not

just

a

few isolated points, all the

statements of our Confession

must be understood in their

relationship to the proper

defense of Christian theism.

2Benjarnin Warfield, The

Westminster Doctrine

of

Scripture, in

The

Westmin

ster Assembly and Its Work

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,

1991), p. 211

2lSee James

W. Sire s

book Why Should Anyone

Believe Anything t All?

(Downer's Grove, IL: .

InterVarsity Press, 1994) for a

revealing look at the compro

mised nature of probability

apologetics. At one point , he

writes, This may be hard for

firm Christian believers to

accept - we could be

wrong.

32

-THE

COUNSEL

ofChalcedon -December,1999/Jannary,2000

2000 Issue 1 - Apologetic Methodology and the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture - Counsel of...

Documents

Transcript of 2000 Issue 1 - Apologetic Methodology and the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture - Counsel of...