A brief justification for

ster Confession of Faith and evidences for our faith? In

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 to
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 In 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. If 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
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 of Westminster
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.
An 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. In 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? It 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. It 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
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 oflife, 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 Spirit to do that. But as
in the case of preaching, so in
the case of apologetical
reasoning, the Holy Spirit may
use a mediate approach to the
minds and hearts of men."6
Presuppositionalism does not
trust in rational arguments to
win the unbeliever It 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. It 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 in
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 of holy 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
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
It 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
if 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
to God 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.
It is assured of a point of
contact in the fact that every
man is made in the image of
God and has impressed upon
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.
12
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 or
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 It to Reason by
Presupposition?
Presuppositional apologet-
ics is an indirect method for
defending the faith. It is
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 will
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
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
It 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
It 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 if 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. It 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. If the 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
!,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, Of 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
to 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
vivid, and immediate proof (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. It 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) In all our discussions (Acts 14:17). David writes
26 -THE COUNSEL of Chalcedou -Decemher,1999/January,2OO(l
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. It no longer excuse for rebellion against
The Necessity of Scripture
leads him to right or pious God. It 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 In 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 Fall- 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
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 of 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. To 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 truth than 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
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. It
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? If 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? If 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. It 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 like
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 Authority
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 29
these evidences are primarily The Insufficiency of is required before a man can
for Christians, those whom
External Evidences for embrace the truth of Scrip-
God gives the spiritual sight to
the Authority of 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 this
to 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-
faith (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
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
It is here that the
persuade us to submit to it.
presuppositionai 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 still
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. It
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
Conclusion
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
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 the, 11111 It- \ I )1I T d L fL Is l)e) l () (11 111\\ l r, t L llL \\ \ r Jll r
suhSCtIPrJ{)lltll)\\ I lr\\(' '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 to
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 At 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