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