In this course recapitulation on Apologetics, I just want to discuss the following topics:
- Responding to the myth of neutrality and charge of circularity
- Understanding apologetics from four basic Reformed doctrines
- Use and dangers to avoid in doing apologetics
- Distinctive characteristics of presuppositional apologetics
- Introducing Cornelius Van Til
Responding the the Myth of Neutrality and Charge of Circularity
In explaining the role of presuppositions
in Christian apologetics, Frame’s main argument focuses on demolishing the myth
of neutrality. He saw this in the so-called classical or traditional
apologetics. Though he argues that a neutral stance is a “sin” and a “lie,” it
does not mean that classical apologetics itself is useless (pp. 6, 9). Read
what he wrote concerning traditional apologetics and neutrality:
“In saying that traditional
apologists espouse ‘neutrality,’ I am not arguing that they seek to put their
Christian commitment aside in doing apologetics. Indeed, many of them believe
that their type of apologetic is warranted by Scripture and is thus very much a
‘setting apart of Christ as Lord.’ They do, however, tell the unbeliever to
think neutrally during the apologetic encounter, and they do seek to develop a
neutral argument, one that has no distinctively biblical presuppositions” (pp.
5-6).
“I am far from wishing to declare
this tradition worthless. But on the precise point at issue, the question of
neutrality, I do believe that its position is unbiblical” (p. 6).
“In all that we do, we must seek to
please him. No area of human life is neutral” (ibid.).
“Therefore, apologetic argument is no
more neutral than any other human activity. In apologetic argument, as in
everything else we do, we must presuppose the truth of God’s Word. We either
accept God’s authority or we do not, and not to do so is sin” (p. 9).
“To tell the unbeliever that we can reason with him on a neutral basis, however that claim might help to attract his attention, is a lie. Indeed, it is a lie of the most serious kind, for it falsifies the very heart of the gospel – that Jesus Christ is Lord” (ibid.).
Frame’s response to the charge of
circularity against Christian apologetics is insightful. He understands
circularity in the Christian sense as the fact of “presupposing a Christian
epistemology – a view of knowledge, testimony, witness, appearance, and fact
that is subject to Scripture. In other words, he is using scriptural standards
to prove scriptural conclusions” (p. 10). He argues that if such procedure is
considered circular, then everyone else is guilty of such offense for every
philosophy is using its own standard to prove its conclusions whether it’s
rationalism, empiricism or skepticism. Elsewhere, he admits that dangers of
misinterpretation cannot be avoided in using the term, but given the definition
of circularity by his critics, he clearly states that he does not believe in it
(ibid. see footnote).
After explaining his view on circularity, he anticipates an objection that given his position on circularity, it does not eliminate the possibility of communication between believer and unbeliever. And he enumerates five reasons for saying so:
- God’s revelation in nature is clear that makes man inexcusable for suppressing his better knowledge of God.
- Apologetic witness is just like preaching or evangelism that can only be made effectual through the supernatural intervention of the Spirit of God.
- Christian apologetics is what we do in similar cases considered not religious.
- Christian apologetic is varied and rich.
- And the distinction between narrow circularity and broad circularity.
Understanding Apologetics from Four Basic Reformed Doctrines
The four basic reformed doctrines
that will help us understand Christian apologetics better include God’s sovereignty,
human responsibility, Sola Scriptura, and natural revelation.
Having a proper understanding of
the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility will help
us see “that apologetics cannot be successful apart from a supernatural
element, namely, the testimony of the Holy Spirit. In that sense, apologetics
is a sovereign work of God. It is he who persuades the unbelieving mind and
heart” (pp. 15-16). At the same time, “there is also a place for the human
apologist. He has the same place as the preacher mentioned in Romans 10:14” (p.
16). Consequently, this will also clarify the argument that apologists play god
by defending the Bible. For Frame, “apologetics, rightly understood, is not
playing God; it is merely practicing a divinely ordained human vocation” (p.
17). Likewise, “to defend the Bible is ultimately simply to present it as it is
– to present its truth, beauty, and goodness, its application to present-day
hearers, and, of course, its rationale” (p. 18).
Under the discussion on Sola
Scriptura, Frame explains the use of extra-biblical material. He states the
reason for the need of such explanation for “some fear that apologetics (which
over the years had been notorious for injecting
non-biblical philosophical notions into Christian theology) may be
seeking to subject Scripture to the judgment of something beyond Scripture”
(ibid.). For Frame, the affirmation of Sola Scriptura “does not require the
exclusion of all extra-biblical data, even from theology” (ibid.). For him, “it
simply requires that in theology and in all other disciplines, the highest
authority, the supreme standard, be Scripture and Scripture alone” (ibid.). As
long as the data from extra-biblical sources are not equated as divine counsel,
it is not a violation of the principle of Sola Scriptura. He further explains
that “human thought, even theology, requires the use of extra-biblical data,
for we are always dealing with the contemporary world in which God has placed
us. Obviously, physics, sociology, geology, psychology, medicine, and so forth
must respond to data beyond the Scriptures. Theology must do the same, because
it is not a mere reading of Scripture, but an application of Scripture to human
need” (p. 19).
Turning to the relationship of
special revelation and natural revelation, Frame identifies two reasons for the
need of “special divine speech” (p. 22): “One was man’s need of a saving promise,
a promise that could never be deduced from natural revelation alone. The other
reason was to correct our sinful misinterpretations of natural revelation” (p.
22).
Use or Value of Apologetics and Dangers to Avoid
The use, purpose, or value of
apologetics is similar to that of preaching. It is a means of “conversion of
the lost,” “edification of the saints,” and “leads more severe condemnation” on
the part of those who reject the Christian message.
As for the dangers in the use of
apologetics, it can be summed as the contradiction between doctrine and life.
Such contradiction can manifest in two ways as implied from the statement of
the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:15 that instead of speaking the truth in love,
apologists are “guilty of speaking falsehood and sometimes of speaking without
love” (pp. 27-28).
Speaking falsehood is difficult
to detect for its form is subtle. It can adopt “intellectual respectability” of
Christianity as its aim. Frame explains the character of such form and cites
church history as his basis:
“Someone will think, ‘If I am going
to present Christianity more persuasively, I will have to show that it is
compatible with the intellectual movements of my time. I must present
Christianity as “intellectually respectable.”’ Thus, various Christian doctrines
are compromised, replaced by the doctrines of popular philosophy. . . Similar
motivations are evident in Clement of Alexandria and Origen, in Thomas Aquinas,
and more recently in Schleiermacher’s . . . and the many modern theologians
from Bultmann to Tillich to Pannenberg who want to show ‘modern man’ the
intellectual value of Christianity” (p. 28).
Frame warns Christian apologists
that our “loyalty is to God – not to intellectual respectability, not to truth
in the abstract, not to the unbeliever as such, not to some philosophic
tradition” (ibid.). Frame mentions other dangers where he designates as “other
sins” (ibid.). They are “misdirected love, underestimation of human sin (as if
what the unbeliever needs is merely a better argument), ignorance of God’s
revelation (especially of biblical presuppositionalism), and intellectual
pride” (ibid.).
Speaking without love shows in contentiousness
due to pride. This is the wrong way of defending the Christian faith with a quarrelsome
spirit. Relating Paul’s admonition to Peter’s statement in 1 Peter 3:15 about
gentleness and respect, Frame honestly admits that those who strongly emphasize
“militant orthodoxy,” tend to neglect gentleness. He then defines respect as
“treating the unbeliever as what he is – a person created in the image of God”
(p. 30). This “would mean not talking down to him, but listening to him – not
belittling him, but taking seriously his questions and ideas” (p. 30).
Distinctive Characteristics of Presuppositional Apologetics
Cornelius Van
Til (1895-1987) developed the
transcendental[1] presuppositional
apologetics for over 50 years. It is an outcome of his vision to reform
apologetics. His view of apologetics has three distinctive characteristics. First,
it is a defense of faith that deals with ultimate commitment. Second, its
theory of knowledge is determined by the message of Christianity. And third, it
argues that since Christianity is true, man has no intellectual hope outside of
Christ and God’s revelation. Summarizing Bahnsen’s own description in a sentence,
we could say that presuppositional apologetics is a defense of Christian faith
that deals with ultimate commitment, “epistemologically self-conscious” (p.
3.), and argues “from the impossibility of the contrary” (p. 4).
Bahnsen explains the first distinctive by sharing Calvin’s comment on
1 Peter 3:15 where the reformer mentions about those who think less of divine
wisdom and who “are carried away by profane audacity” (p. 1). Bahnsen claims
that this description does not refer to unbelievers, but to Christian
apologists who assume intellectual autonomy. By doing such, the result is “contentious
disputes” where the Bible tells God’s servants to avoid. Instead, the personal requirement
in defending the Christian faith is to set Christ as Lord in your heart. This
means that Christ must be acknowledged as the Lord in your reasoning from
beginning until the end. This further “means that the apologist must presuppose
the truth of God’s word from start to finish in his apologetic witness” (p. 2).
This is how Bahnsen understands “ultimate commitment” in apologetics.
The other way of briefly explaining the second distinctive is that
our theory of knowledge must be taken from our theology or that the apologetical
method we are using must be based on our message.
As to the third distinctive, Bahnsen explains it in several ways:
Revelation “is the only philosophically sound foundation for any
reasoning whatsoever” (p. 5).
“The task of
the apologist is not simply to show that there is no hope of eternal salvation
outside of Christ, but also that the unbeliever has no present intellectual
hope outside of Christ” (ibid.).
“The unbeliever
attempts to enlist logic, science, and morality in his debate against the truth
of Christianity. Van Til’s apologetic answers these attempts by arguing that
only the truth of Christianity can rescue the meaningfulness and cogency of
logic, science, and morality. The presuppositional challenge to the unbeliever
is guided by the premise that only the Christian worldview provides the philosophical
preconditions necessary for man’s reasoning and knowledge in any field whatever”
(pp. 5-6).
“Any position
contrary to the Christian one, therefore, must be seen as philosophically
impossible” (p.6).
Introducing Cornelius Van Til
In introducing
the man behind the reformation in apologetics, Bahnsen consolidated information
from numerous sources that speak about Van Til’s initial education,
intellectual context, student life at Princeton, distinctive approach in
presuppositional apologetics, short stay as instructor of apologetics at
Princeton, sample academic works, extent of influence, and the story of two
books published to honor his academic accomplishments.
Cornelius Van
Til was born on May 3, 1895 in Holland. His family migrated to the US in 1905. At
the age of 19, he was convinced of his calling to be a gospel minister. As for
academic subjects, he loved philosophy prior to his entrance to Calvin
Theological Seminary. In 1921, when he entered the seminary, “he was already
familiar with the works of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck and had added a
knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin to his Dutch and English! He studied
systematic theology under Louis Berkhof and Christian philosophy under W. H.
Jellema” (p. 8).
As to the intellectual
climate during Van Til’s time, “American Christianity in the 1920s was reacting
to the shock waves of theological liberalism, inspired by German higher
criticism of the Bible and a Darwinian view of man” (ibid.). Furthermore, “American
philosophy in the 1920s was interacting with various responses to Kant’s
critical philosophy (absolute idealism, personalism, neoralism, and critical
realism) and coming under the sway of naturalistic ideologies (pragmatism and
positivism). Among the schools of noted academic stature was Princeton
University, whose philosophy department was headed by the Scottish personalist,
Archibald Allan Bowman (1883-1936)” (ibid.).
Turning to Van
Til’s intellectual formation during his education at Princeton, his “seminary
adviser, C. W. Hodge, Jr., was a grandson of Charles Hodge and the succesor to
B. B. Warfield” (p. 9). “. . . the professor closest to his heart was
Geerhardus Vos, the respected Dutch scholar who championed the method of
biblical theology to the Reformed community in America” (ibid.). Also while a
student at Princeton, “Van Til wrote the prize-winning student papers for both
1923 (on evil and theodicy) and 1924 (on the will and its theological
relations). The seminary granted him a Th.M. in systematic theology in 1925,. .
.” (ibid.). “At the university, Van Til’s prowess in metaphysical analysis and
his mastery of Hegelian philosophy gained high praise from A. A. Bowman, who
offered him a graduate fellowship. In 1927 the university granted him a Ph. D.
In philosophy for a dissertation on ‘God and the Absolute’” (ibid.).
Writing his
first published piece, “a review of Alfred North Whitehead’s Religion in the Making, Van Til
“exhibited the salient lines” of “presuppositional approach: (a) locating his
opponent’s crucial presuppositions, (b) criticizing the autonomous attitude
that arises from a failure to honor the Creator-creature distinction, (c) exposing
the internal and destructive philosophical tensions that attend autonomy, and
then (d) setting forth the only viable alternative, Biblical Christianity” (p.
10).
After Van Til
received his doctorate degree in 1927, he was invited to teach apologetics at
Princeton. After a year, he “impressed everyone so favorably” that “the Board
elected him to assume the Stuart Chair of apologetics and ethics” (ibid.). The
following year, Machen left Princeton (due to the decision of GAPCUSA to
reorganize Princeton Seminary to embrace a “broad church”) (ibid.) and decided
to establish Westminster. Van Til followed and continued in the new seminary
his vision of reforming apologetics.
A sample of Van
Til’s academic works include articles, syllabi, and books. He reviewed two
works of Bavinck in 1929. In 1931, he wrote A
Christian Theistic Theory of Knowledge and A Christian Theistic Theory of Reality. The following year, he
produced his first major syllabus, The
Metaphysics of Apologetics. Other syllabi that Van Til wrote covered
“apologetics, evidences, prolegomena to systematic theology, psychology of
religion, ethics, and the ‘theology of crisis’ of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner”
(p. 12). His “most commonly read book” was The
Defense of the Faith (1955).[2]
Van Til’s
transcendental presuppositional apologetics brought a reformation in Christian
thinking in three directions, which Bahnsen describes as “outwardly,”
“inwardly,” and widely” (pp. 12-15). The outward influence includes “internal
critique of Plato, Kant, Dewey, idealism, personalism, process philosophy, . .
.” (pp. 12-13).
The inward
direction is actually a call for self-examination among Christian scholars and
apologists. Such call results into confrontation with diverse defections from
Christian theology and Christian philosophy, which Bahnsen classifies under
three groups: “(1) the schools of modern theology, from Barth and Brunner to
Heidegger, Teilhard, Buber, Ferre, Tillich, Kroner, the ‘God is dead’ movement,
the confession of 1967, and the new hermeneutic of Fuchs and Ebeling, or (2) the
American Presbyterian tradition, including past stalwarts such as Charles
Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and W. B. Greene, and more recent figures such as J.
Oliver Buswell, Gordon Clark, Floyd Hamilton, and Edward J. Carnel, or (3) the
teachings of Dutch Reformed authors in the Netherlands and the United States –
such as Kuyper, Bavinck, Berkouwer, Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, William Masselink,
and James Daane” (pp. 13-15).
Except from apologetics
and Christian philosophy, the wider influence of Van Til’s ideas includes Christian
theology, ethics, intellectual history, key figures in church history,
Christian culture, and Christian education (p.15).
The two books
published to honor Van Til’s academic accomplishments both as a theologian and
as an apologist are Jerusalem and Athens
(1971) and the Foundations of Christian
Scholarship (1976).
[1] The term ‘transcendental’ should not be confused with “transcendent,” which describes something beyond nature, but refers to an acceptable philosophical term used by both Aristotle and Kant, pertaining to “what general conditions must be fulfilled for any particular instance of knowledge to be possible” (Taken from footnote, pp. 5-6).
[2] As for his other books, see footnotes from pages 11 -15.
References:
Frame, J. M. 1994. Apologetics
to the Glory of God: An Introduction – Chapter 1: Apologetics: The Basics.
Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing. Pp. 1- 30.
Bahnsen, Greg. 1998. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis - Chapter 1: An Introduction to Van Til’s Apologetic. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing. Pp. 1- 20.
Guide Questions for Discussion:
1. For Frame, how does he call the neutral stance in classical apologetics? Does it mean that classical apologetics is useless?
2. Cite Frame’s statements concerning his view on neutrality.
3. How did Frame respond to the charge of circularity? Does this make the conversation between believer and unbeliever impossible? Enumerate the five reasons that such is not the case.
4. What are the four basic doctrines that will help us understand Christian apologetics better. In what way that these doctrines help?
5. What is the value of Christian apologetics?
6. Explain the dangers in the practice of Christian apologetics. How did Frame explain both “speaking falsehood” and "speaking without love.”
7. Identify the three distinctive characteristics of presuppositional apologetics. Briefly explain each.
8. Describe the intellectual climate during Van Til’s time. Do you think that the issues during Van Til’s are still relevant today?
9. What are the “salient lines” of presuppositional apologetics?
10. Describe the three directions of the influence of Van Til’s ideas.
11. Identify the two books published to honor Van Til’s academic achievement.
Mga Komento
Mag-post ng isang Komento