The Task of Apologetics: Nature and Necessity

The 2nd chapter of Bahnsen's book, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (pp. 27 - 87) is divided into three major sections: the nature and necessity of apologetics; the relationship of apologetics to theology, evangelism, and philosophy; and the aim of apologetics. Each of these major sections contains Bahnsen’s summary and analysis. After presenting his summary and analysis, he subdivides each section under several points: the first major section into five points, the second major section into six points, and the last major section into three.

Interestingly, the structure of the book, which is also true to this chapter is that all the points under major sections contain excerpts taken from Van Til’s books. Hence, the subtitle “Readings and Analysis.” To me, the book is like a collection of Van Til’s writings on the subject appropriately arranged by Bahnsen according to the design that he has in mind.

In this present summary of the chapter, I intend to just post quotes from Bahnsen’s analysis of each major section and then let the reader go directly to the points under it with excerpts from Van Til’s books. By doing this, I intend to use this format I have in mind as a guide in discussing Van Til’s apologetic to my class.

The Nature and Necessity of Apologetics

Explaining this section, Bahnsen narrates both the experience of Christians in the ancient world of being falsely accused for their faith and the danger of the wrong kind of positive acceptance. Notice his enumeration of such false accusations (p. 27):

1. “The report of Jesus’ resurrection was taken as an idle tale (Luke 24:11), a lie, (Matt. 28:13-15), and an impossibility (Acts 26:8).”

2. For preaching the resurrection, “believers were arrested by the Jews (Acts 4:20-23) and mocked by the Greek philosophers (Acts 17:32).”

3. “On the day of Pentecost the disciples were accused of being drunk (Acts 2:13).”

4. “Stephen was accused of opposing previous revelation (Acts 6:11-14).”

5. “Paul was accused of introducing new gods (Acts 17:18-20).”

6. “The church was accused of political insurrection (Acts 17:6-7).”

7. “Experts openly contradicted what the Christians taught (Acts 13:45) and prejudicially vilified their persons (Acts 14:2).”

As to the wrong kind of positive acceptance, here’s how Bahnsen explains it:

“ The apostles were confused for gods by advocates of pagan religion (Acts 14:11-13), given unwelcome commendation by soothsayers (Acts 16:16-18), and had their message absorbed by heretical legalists (Acts 15:1, 5)” (p. 28).

And then Bahnsen gleans a powerful lesson for 20th century Christians:

“Twentieth-century believers can sympathize with their brothers in the ancient world. Our Christian faith continues to see the same variety of attempts to oppose and undermine it” (ibid.).

“What kind of response should be made to such accusations and challenges? It is clear from the New Testament record that the believers in the early church were not content to be relativists, subjectivists, or eclectics. In the accounts of opposition that are mentioned above, Christians are not found replying that nobody can know anything for sure (especially about supernatural matters), in which case there is no absolute truth. Religious disagreements are not seen as irresolvable differences of personal upbringing, culture, or perspective. We do not read anything like ‘The Bible is true for me, but may not be true for you.’ Nor can we find any willingness to make common cause with false religiosity as long as Christianity is accepted as one among many legitimate points of view. Instead, what we find in answer to accusation, ridicule, and alternative religions is apologetics. . .” (ibid.).

Biblical references: Acts 2:36; 9:22; 17:17-18; 26:2; Phil. 1:7, 16.

Class Activity: Pause for a while and reflect on these two quotes. What lessons can you learn from them?

After identifying the lesson from the experience of the early church, Bahnsen continues to explain the nature and necessity of apologetics. At this point, I found a series of insightful quotes:

A quote on the objectivity and exclusivity of John 14:6.

Another quote on truth:

“. . . truth is not clearly taught unless whatever contradicts it or whatever error stands over against it is refuted” (p. 29).

A quote on the place of apologetics:

Apologetics “should be seen in the wider context of the total New Testament witness. . .” (ibid.).

A quote on apologetics as Christian obligation and doubly on the part of shepherds of the church. Biblical references: 1 Pet. 3:15; Acts 20:28-30; 1 Pet. 5:1-3; Titus 1:9.

A quote on a long list of ways Christian truth-claims is under attack:

“There are many ways in which Christian truth-claims come under attack. Their meaningfulness is challenged. The possibility of miracles, revelation, and incarnation is questioned. Doubt is cast upon the deity of Christ or the existence of God. The historical or scientific accuracy of the Bible is attacked. Scriptural teaching is rejected for not ebbing logically coherent. Conscious life following physical death, everlasting damnation, and a future resurrection are not readily accepted. The way of salvation is found disgusting or unnecessary. The nature of God and the way of salvation are falsified by heretical schools of thought. Competing religious systems are set over against Christianity. The ethics of Scripture is criticized. The psychological or political adequacy of Christianity is looked down upon. These and many, many other lines of attack are directed against biblical Christianity” (pp. 29-30).

A quote on worldview:

“Everybody thinks and reasons in terms of a broad and fundamental understanding of the nature of reality, of how we know what we know, and of how we should live our lives. This philosophy or outlook is ‘presupposed’ by everything the unbeliever (or believer) says; it is the implicit background that gives meaning to the claims and inferences drawn by people. For this reason, every apologetical encounter is ultimately a conflict of worldviews or fundamental perspectives (whether this is explicitly mentioned or not)” (p. 30).

A quote on theism:

“Likewise, the Christian apologist does not argue for just any kind of abstract, general theism (‘a god of some sort or other’), but rather for the specific conception of God revealed within the Christian Scriptures” (pp. 30-31).

Quote on the use of our mind:

“When we begin to use our intellects in the service of our Creator and Savior, we naturally wish to make our best effort and produce work of the highest quality possible” (p. 31).

Quote on doing apologetics in humility:

“Apologetics can be pursued with a humble boldness, one which displays true concern for the error of the unbeliever’s thinking and the destructiveness of his ways. This does not mean giving even an inch on any issue of truth over which we disagree with the unbeliever. But it does mean, as Dr. Van Til would always say, that we keep buying the next cup of coffee for our opponent” (p. 32).

Quoting Van Til on the significance of apologetics:

“ ‘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 apologeticsal reasoning, the Holy Spirit may use a mediate approach to the minds and hearts of men. The natural man is quite able intellectually to follow the argument that the Christian offers for the truth of his position. He can therefore see that the wisdom of this world has been made foolishness by God. Christianity can be shown to be, not ‘just as good’ or even ‘better than’ the non-Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience’ ” (p. 33).

After presenting his summary and analysis of Van Til’s ideas on the nature and necessity of apologetics, Bahnsen divides this topic under five points or sub-sections. All of these sub-sections are supported with excerpts taken from Van Til’s books. What I will do this time is just to present these sub-sections, identify the source, and list important insights.

1. Apologetics depends Christianity as a whole. The excerpt is taken from Apologetics pages 1 and 2. Important insights include:

a. The view that Christian theism is a unit.

b. The inescapability of philosophical discussion in depending Christianity as a historical religion.

c. Depending Christian theism both historically and philosophically.

2. Both apologetics and evidences vindicate Christian theism. The excerpts is taken from Christian-Theistic Evidences pages i-ii. Important insights are:

a. Christian Theism as a whole must be defended against both non-theistic philosophy and non-theistic science by means of apologetics and evidences respectively. 

b. We do not separate Christianity from theism as if apologetics is dealing with theism and evidences with Christianity. 

c. The God Christianity is the only universal that gives meaning to facts or to particulars.

3. Apologetics provides a basic method for answering every challenge. The excerpt is taken from The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought pages 1 and 2. Important insights are: 

a. Christianity and science do not operate in independent spheres as in Kantian scheme. 

b. Distinction between apparent and real contradiction. 

4. Apologetics should be pursued in a learned fashion. The excerpt is taken from An Introduction to Systematic Theology pages 5 to 7. Important insights include:

a. The danger of doctrinal one-sidedness resulting to spiritual one-sidedness. Intellectualistic, emotional, activistic. Prophet, priest, king. 

b. The importance of the study of systematic theology to provide such doctrinal and spiritual balance. 

c. Study of systematic theology is beneficial for church officers as well as for the body of Christ, both individually and collectively. 

d. False antinomy between Bible-trained and systematically trained. 

e. The goal is to avoid proof-texting, but to teach the whole counsel of God. 

f. The importance of the study of systematic theology in facing numerous forms of attacks coming from different worldviews. 

g. Minister's duty as increasingly that of an apologist. 

h. Knowledge of systematic theology as prerequisite to become an apologist. 

i. Knowledge of systematic theology both as the best defense and best help for the propagation of the truth. 

j. The need for the church to return from its "jerky evangelism," and "revivalism" into its teaching ministry. 

5. Apologetical reasoning with the unbeliever is not useless. The excerpt is taken from The Deefense of Faith pages 363 to 364. Important insights include:

a. The Arminian misinterpretation of Reformed position. 

b. The Arminian substitute.

c. Does the natural man know or does not know God?

d. "In reply to this, the Calvinist insists that there are no degrees of deadness. The natural man does not know God. But to be thus without knowledge, without living, loving, true knowledge of God, he must be one who knows God in the sense of having the sense of deity (Romans 1). For spiritual deadness of the natural man is what it is as suppression of the knowledge of God given man by virtue of creation in God's image" (p. 42).