Free course on Islam and more from GA

The Biblical Training website is offering Dr. Timothy Tennent's (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) course lectures on Islam for free.  This is a good way to understand what Muslims believe (including looking at some of the diversity of modern Islam) and prepare for conversations with Islamic friends.

Here are the rest of the updates on what is being done at the PCA General Assembly from the Aquila Report.

Thursday AM Report
Thursday PM Report
Friday Report

Some thoughts on the age of the earth

The 2010 Ligonier National Conference just recently wrapped up and Ligonier Ministries has helpfully posted summaries of the different sessions (links provided below). Al Mohler gave a talk titled, “Why Does the Universe Look So Old?” In it he surveyed four major Christian views on the age of the earth: the 24-hour calendar day theory, the day-age theory, the framework theory, and the literary theory.

 

Mohler concludes that the literary theory ultimately rejects inerrancy and ought not to be accepted. He also argues that the framework theory does not properly take the sequential nature of Genesis 1:1-2:3 into account and also ought to be discarded. Mohler also discards the day-age view because he does not think it can account for the exegetical and theological issues related to the historicity of Adam and the Fall. This leads Mohler to take a 24-hour calendar day theory because of the exegetical and theological issues at stake in this debate.

 

This has been a heated topic in Christian circles for many years. I recently attended a conference on science and faith where during one panel several of the scientists and theologians involved confessed that a large part their time was usually spent answering questions about the age of the earth and those discussions almost always became confrontational. Views on creation have led to Old Testament Professors leaving both Westminster Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary in recent years.

 

A few years ago the PCA General Assembly commissioned a committee to study this issue and report back. This report was later adopted by the PCA as a guideline that Presbyteries may use if they wished for evaluating candidates for ordination. The committee looked at the following positions:

1. Calendar-Day – Argues that “day” in Genesis 1:1-2:3 refers to six literal 24-hour calendar days. 
2. Day-Age – “Day” refers to a period of indefinite time and the focus of the passage is on God’s creative activity but not a literal description of the time that creation took. 
3. Framework – Notes that there is a correlation between the spheres of nature created on days 1-3 and the inhabitants in days 4-6 (for example, seas on day 2 and the fish on day 5) and so this is a literary tool that Moses used to teach Israel about the Creator and to give them the divine pattern for work and rest but “day” is figurative in the passage. 
4. Analogical Days – Argues that the “days” are God’s work days and these are analogous but not identical to our calendar days so they refer to consecutive divine activity but not to a definite period of time. 
5. Other interpretations – The biggest one included here is theistic evolution.

The study committee concluded that all of the four major views could be harmonized with Scripture without compromising the essentials of our faith (notably theistic evolution is excluded here). They held that ministers must believe the following truths in order to be orthodox:

1. that Scripture is in the inerrant Word of God and is self-interpreting;
2. that Genesis 1-3 are fully historical;
3. that Adam and Eve were uniquely created as the first parents of the human race;
4. that Adam was the covenant head of the human race;
5. that the curse and resultant discord in the universe is a result of Adam’s first sin;
6. that the incomprehensible God has clearly revealed himself in nature;
7. and, that he revealed exactly what he intended.

I think that the above points are an excellent summary of an orthodox view of creation regardless of what position an individual takes on the age of the earth. I would highly recommend that everyone read the whole report because it is well written and covers these views pretty nicely.

 

Personally, while wanting to insist that we be careful not to major on the minors on debates within Christian circles, I take the calendar day position for epistemological reasons. Our fundamental premise is that we live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. So divine authority and corresponding revelation is our first presupposition in every area of human activity. I think the reason that this issue in particular becomes so controversial and difficult is because it seems to us that general revelation (the apparent age of the universe) and special revelation (that the universe was created in a week) seem to conflict with each other. I’ve had several good exchanges on this topic with a seminary friend of mine who takes a position somewhere between framework and analogical day. At one point he made the observation, “Natural and special revelation speak with one voice. YEC’s [young earth creationists] tend to suppress natural for special and OEC’s [old earth creationists] tend to suppress special for natural.”

 

This is a very helpful point even though he was intentionally making a generalization. The most important statement is that natural revelation and special revelation speak with one voice. Our God is not double-minded; saying one thing through the things that he has made and another in his inscripturated Word (see Psalm 19). Those who hold to a calendar-day view do tend to focus on God’s infallible and inerrant revelation in Scripture and so take the position that whenever there is an apparent (though not real) conflict between special and natural revelation that it means special revelation must carry the day. While this is certainly an understandable assumption these same arguments were used against Galileo when he dared to argue against a geocentric model for the universe. So we need to be careful in recognizing that while Scripture is infallible and inerrant our interpretations are not.

 

OEC’s do tend to elevate natural revelation above special revelation by taking the conclusions from scientific (and/or literary) observation and using them as hermeneutical tools for interpreting Genesis 1-3. Rightly this observes that, while Scripture has much to say that applies to scientific endeavors, the Bible is not a science textbook and Genesis 1-3 is not intended to be an exact scientific description of God’s creative activity. The sad consequence here has been that the edge between trying to harmonize what God reveals in nature and Scripture and falling into doubting or rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture can be very thin and we’ve seen a number of Old Testament scholars in Reformed circles who have crossed that line in recent years.

 

Ultimately I think what we need to do is take into account the presuppositions that scientists are forced to work with when we evaluate their conclusions. Science cannot speak to history but only to the present and probabilities for the future. When a scientist concludes that the universe appears to be millions or even billions of years old we have to recognize that they make that conclusion upon the assumption that the things have been relatively constant for that whole period. Yet this is an unfounded and unprovable assumption (if nothing else the flood alone is a disruption to the constant order of the universe or the points in the Old Testament where God caused the sun to hold still or go backwards). This is simply the oft-repeated objection that science cannot prove the past and ultimately we should doubt what science tries to tell us about history. Speaking to what happened in the past goes far beyond the bounds of the scientific endeavor.

 

Where I believe this leaves us is searching for a reliable account of how the world came to be. The only place we can find this is in Scripture as God is necessarily the only witness to creation. This means that our interpretation of the age of the earth needs to be an exegetical exercise. The burden of proof is upon OEC’s to show, not that Genesis 1-3 allows for a creation period of longer than a calendar week, but that it requires a creation period of longer than a calendar week. This is why our epistemological standpoint is so important on this issue. It is not that we doubt God’s revelation in nature but we have to recognize our own limitations in interpreting nature scientifically. I’m perfectly willing to grant that Genesis 1-3 may allow for the earth to be millions or billions of years old. However I don’t see anything in Genesis 1-3 that forces that conclusion and the only reason I can see to make it is on the basis of scientific observation about the age of the universe, which we have already shown to be unreliable.

 

For this reason I think it best to accept the natural reading of “day” in this passage. Now insisting upon this point does not make us, as one Old Testament scholar suggested in a moment of weakness, cultish in refusing to deal honestly with scientific inquiry. It is not that we hold to special revelation and then shut out eyes and plug our ears when faced with the appearance of age from natural revelation. Instead we ought to question the unbelieving presuppositions that are brought to the scientific endeavor and used to reach conclusions about the age of the universe apart from Scripture. This is an opening for the gospel, in testifying to the coherence of special revelation and natural revelation and in insisting that God’s revelation as a whole is only properly understood when we have a mindset and worldview that bows to his authority as the Creator and Lord.

Other seminars from the 2010 Ligonier Conference:
Ed Stetzer - "The Brave New World of New Media"
Burk Parsons - "Taking Captive New Media for the Church"
Al Mohler - "The Hyper-Socialized Generation"
John MacArthur - "Why Did Jesus Have to Die?"
Michael Horton - "Is the Doctrine of Inerrancy Defensible?"
John MacArthur - "Does the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees Eliminate Human Will?"
R.C. Sproul - "What is Evil and What is its Origin?"
R.C. Sproul Jr. - "Why Do Christians Still Sin?"
Derek Thomas - "How Do We Know Which Interpretation Is Right?"
Steven Lawson - "Is the Bible Just Another Book?"
Alistair Begg - "Is the Exclusivity of Christ Unjust?"
Q&A Session
Burk Parsons - "Is Calvinism Good for the Church?"
Derek Thomas - "If God is Good How Could He Command Holy War?"
R.C. Sproul - "Can We Enjoy Heaven Knowing of Loved Ones in Hell?"

 

Some miscellaneia

Here are an assortment of things for this week.  First, Crossway has posted their Summer/Fall book catalogue for 2010.  There are some good looking books on here by Piper and some edited by Carson worth getting excited about.  There's also a book coming out on B.B. Warfield's theology that looks pretty valuable.

Second, L. Roy Taylor has put a brief paper up in outline format on the strengths and weaknesses of our system of church polity in the PCA.  I think that he makes a lot of valuable points here and the encouragement at the end is one we should give a hearty "Amen" to.

Third, here's a good post from Ron DiGiacomo, a ruling elder in the OPC, on the place of deduction and induction in presuppositional apologetics.  This is pretty valuable to read because the false accusation that is often heard from classical apologists is that presuppositional apologetics rejects the use of logic in favor of simply asserting presuppositions or first premises.  This is certainly not true as anyone who has read more than the first few pages of Van Til, Frame, Bahnsen, Oliphint, or Edgar could see.  However it is good to see how a transcendental argument for God's existence (transcendental is a far better term for Van Til apologetic method than presuppositional) should be built using deductive and inductive reasoning without a Christian framework.  The last part of that sentence is important because when we set the Lord Jesus apart as holy in our minds before giving an answer to those who ask a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Pet. 3:15) then we find that even the method of our apologetic will start from a Christian foundation.

Where is God in the Earthquake?

Where is God in the earthquake?
By Matthew Pickens

Events like the recent 7.0 earthquake that occurred off the coast of Haiti raise a lot of questions about the sovereignty of God and human suffering. Most estimates place the number of dead between 50,000 and 100,000 and that number may continue to rise as relief efforts are hampered by the chaos in the area. How should Christians respond to such tragedies?

First, our attention should be drawn to the fact that while Christ’s great work of redemption has been accomplished it has not yet been perfected. Paul reminds us that the creation itself groans for the revealing of the children of God (Rom. 8:19). Tragedies like this earthquake remind us that this present world as polluted by the consequences of Adam’s sin is far short of the new heavens and the new earth to be revealed when Christ comes in glory and God himself will wipe away every tear from our eyes (Rev. 21:1-7).

Second, while we reject the comments made by Pat Robertson that this earthquake was God’s judgment on Haiti we do have to acknowledge that disasters like this are a sign of God’s final judgment for sins. Jesus points to events where unjust persecution or disaster should be understood as a warning of the true and perfect divine judgment that is to come (Luke 13:1-5). We should understand that even horrific disasters like what happened in Haiti work like the trumpets in revelation. The blast of the trumpet is not the judgment itself. But it calls out a warning that the judgment is coming and summons all men everywhere to repent.

Third, we have to remember that God is sovereign over the earthquake. God does not need us to defend him by making him less than perfectly sovereign over all things. Scripture clearly asserts God’s omniscience (Ps. 139; Heb. 4:11-13; Is. 46:10; 1 John 3:20), omnipotence (Ps. 115:3; Is. 14:24, 27; 46:10; 55:11; Luke 18:27), and absolute sovereignty (Rom. 11:33-36; 1 Tim. 6:15-16). We cannot say that this earthquake was something that God could not prevent or did not foreordain according to his perfect plan.

However it is exactly this point that ought to give us hope in the face of such tragedies! Because God works things out according to his plan we know that there is a good purpose to our pain even when we do not understand that purpose (Rom. 8:28). If God is not sovereign over the earthquake then there is no hope for one day when such disasters will never occur in the new heavens and the new earth. It is only because we believe in God’s sovereignty that we can trust that God has a good purpose for the evil that happens in this world. The proof of God’s goodness in the face of suffering is the cross of Jesus Christ. God ordained all that happens in this world but that means he ordained a world he would enter in human flesh and blood and personally suffer the consequences of sin. If God did not spare his own Son but gave him up for our salvation then we can be confident that he will also graciously give us all things (Rom. 8:32).

The prophet Jeremiah also once faced a situation that led him to question God’s goodness. Through the whole book of Lamentations he weeps over the horror he has witnessed. Yet right in the middle of his lament he calls to mind the faithfulness of God:

The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end;they are new every morning;great is your faithfulness.“The LORD is my portion,” says my soul,“therefore I will hope in him.” (Lam. 3:22-24)

So the way that we need to respond to the earthquake is to believe that God is good and to put our trust in him. Along with this we know that God’s message to the people of Haiti is to repent and to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The best answer to the earthquake is to point to God’s mercy, kindness, and love as they were demonstrated at the cross and then to comfort God’s people with the words from the Heidelberg Catechism:

(Q. 28) What advantage is it to us to know that God has created, and by his providence does still uphold all things?

That we may be patient in adversity; thankful in prosperity; and that in all things, which may hereafter befall us, we place our firm trust in our faithful God and Father, that nothing shall separate us from his love; since all creatures are so in his hand, that without his will they cannot so much as move.

Movies and worldviews

Here's a helpful link from John Frame reflecting on movies and whether or not is appropriate for Christians to watch movies that involve violence, gore, language, or sex. Frame helpfully points out that the real conflict that Christians have with these kinds of movies is not the sin depicted on the screen but rather the underlying worldview that suppresses knowledge of God and worships the creature rather than the Creator. On that basis we need to be conscience not just of how we watch a rated R movie but even how we watch Disney cartoon films. There's some very good theology influencing the apologetics and ethics behind asking whether or not Christians should see certain movies and why. Frame has an unpublished book on the topic that he has made available free at the website he shares with Vern Poythress. (HT: Feeding on Christ)

New book on apologetics

William Edgar and Scott Oliphint, who both teach apologetics and theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, have coedited a new primer on Apologetics. This will be a two volume work with the second volume being released sometime next year. The first volume is now out and available through WTS books. This surveys primary sources from the New Testament era up through the Middle Ages. The editors have given some helpful commentary before each piece and a few footnotes to help in understanding. Both are Van Tilians and have written some excellent books on Apologetics themselves (from Oliphint see The Battle Belongs to the Lord and Reasons for Faith; from Edgar see Reasons of the Heart and The Face of Truth). For anyone who is interested in Apologetics this should be a very interesting read.

Some book news

I will put some recommended reading on John Calvin up tomorrow on the anniversary of his birth but here is some other book news that's out there. First, Monergism books is offering free shipping for the month of July (in honor of Calvin's birth). You can get all the details here. Lot's of good books are available there at fair prices so check it out.

Second, Reformation Heritage Books is offering The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson on sale for 40% off (just $18). There are some helpful essays in this book and it's worth that price.

Finally, a new book will be coming out from American Vision Publishers in July that looks fantastic. Edited by Joel McDurmon, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended by Greg Bahnsen will soon be available. Bahnsen is best known for his "Great Debate" with Dr. Gordon Stein over the existence of God. I think that we can hold that he was one of the greatest apologists in church history and was also gifted in distilling apologetic method in a way that it is understandable. At just a little over 300 pages this ought to be a gold-mine for studying apologetics.

The Myth and Immorality of Neutrality

Coming off the last post where we looked at how to understand the Proverbs telling not to answer and to answer the fool, we want to continue to build on this to broaden our understanding of how we ought to engage in apologetics. The first thing that we’re going to do is build on not answering the fool according to his folly lest we become like him. In this context we need to deal with the idea of neutrality in apologetic encounters. The idea is often posited that we need to ignore our commitments to Scripture in order to approach the evidence from a neutral standpoint and build our argument by appealing to the reason of the unbeliever. We’ve already dealt with this idea several times but not in the context of not becoming like the fool and we want to look at a few passages that teach us not to minimize or ignore the differences in authorities that we appeal to.

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. . . . Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Col. 2:1-3, 5-15)

We will focus on how this passage applies to our apologetic method. Paul tells the churches in Colossae that his prayer for them is that they might reach the riches of the full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery. Mystery is a word that Paul often uses for something that was hidden through the ages but is now revealed, so he often uses it to refer to the gospel. He then immediately tells them that these things are hidden in Christ; and moreover that all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are contained there. He reminds them of this so that they will not be deceived by “plausible arguments.” Further, he commands the believers to walk in Christ just as they received him. The specific way that they received him is as Lord. This is a term that means full commitment to Christ above all other commitments and means that they must be rooted and built up in Christ, they must be established in the faith as they were taught, and they must abound in thanksgiving. The opposite of walking in Christ as Lord is being taken captive by philosophy according to human tradition and the Spirits of the world. This leads Paul into an explanation of the gospel that they received. In Christ is found all of the fullness of deity and he is the ultimate rule and authorities from which all other legitimate authority flows. In being circumcised and baptized into Christ the believers are now raised from the dead in Christ, made alive together with him, forgiven of all trespasses, and cleared of all debt. In his death and resurrection Christ has disarmed the rulers and authorities opposed to him and has put them to open shame.

This helps us to see why it is so important to maintain our commitment to the Triune God speaking in Scripture as the ultimate authority. Paul shows that all wisdom and knowledge do not come from independent investigation of the universe but rather from the God who reveals these things. When we study philosophy, science, history, or any subject we do not do it according to human tradition but with our thinking subject to Christ Jesus as Lord. He is and must be the final authority as he is both the fullness of the Creator and the Redeemer who has triumphed over all other authorities. So we cannot make an appeal to neutral reason. There is no such thing! If it existed then it would be an authority above Christ. This is idolatry and rebellion against Christ as Lord. There is reason that is subject to Christ and there is reason that is opposed to him and subject to human tradition and the elemental spirits of the world. This shows us that neutrality is a myth. But we can say more.

Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!—assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (Eph. 4:17-24)

Here we have a command related to the way that we think and reason. Paul tells the church in Ephesus that they must no longer walk as Gentiles in the futility of their minds. He explains this futility as being alienated from the life of God and darkened in their understanding because their hearts are hardened. These are the characteristics of thinking that seeks to be “neutral.” Futile, or “vain” in older translations, thinking is reasoning that refuses to submit to God’s lordship as he speaks in revelation (Deut 32:47; Phil. 2:16; Acts 4:25; 1 Cor. 3:20; 1 Tim. 1:6; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:15-18; Tit. 1:9-10). In contrast to this, believers are renewed in the spirit of their minds! When we come to faith in Christ our reasoning is no longer in the wisdom of the world but according to the Spirit who knows and reveals the hidden things of God (1 Cor. 2:4-5). We do not think and reason like unbelievers. We think and reason as those who have been taught the truth that is in Jesus. For the believer, the pretense of neutrality is not only a myth but it is immoral. Both of these passages remind us again of the choice in authority is autonomy (self rule) or theonomy (God rule). These two options are ultimately irreconcilable. Neutrality is autonomy that demands that we exalt our own ability to reason and to judge. Scripture demands an unwavering commitment to God’s right and ability to judge. Because the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7) it is necessary that Christians reject all claims to intellectual neutrality and autonomy and instead trust that God’s knowledge is primary and the knowledge of his creatures is based upon his revelation and coming to think God’s thoughts after him.

Now we can apply this to what we’ve already said about apologetics. It is by refusing to suspend our commitment to Christ as Lord that we acknowledge his right to rule and direct our thinking according to his Word and that we do not answer the fool according to his folly and thus do not become like him. So when we engage in the task of offering a defense of why we are a Christian or a reason for the hope that is within us we do not do so from the vantage point of neutrality. Instead we insist that God speaking in Scripture is our highest authority and then show that Christianity reasonably answers any objection on that basis. In all things we show that our worldview is coherent because it alone provides a basis for any sort of absolute in creation. Two posts from now we will start to look at why this is the case. Next time we will ask how we are to answer the fool according to his folly.

Answering the fool

In the last post on apologetics, we held that the heart of the apologetic encounter is a conflict between views on ultimate authority. For the Christian, the Triune God who speaks in Scripture is the highest authority. For the unbeliever the knowledge of God’s eternal Godhead and power is suppressed and they exchange the glory of the invisible God for created things. What we need to do next is to outline what methods we ought to use to give a reason why we are Christians and to try to persuade others to repent of their sins and believe the gospel; knowing that only the work of the Holy Spirit can truly bring someone to faith in Christ.

What “evidential” apologetics does is minimize the conflict of authorities that we’ve seen between believers and unbelievers so that it can be resolved the same way that we would resolve any other problem. So it seeks to appeal to the unbeliever on his own terms. It appeals to his reason, to interpreting the evidence available (be it scientific, philosophical, logical, or archaeological), and then to coming to the believer’s conclusion. The problem is that the unbeliever by necessity must reject this line of reasoning because it cannot fit within his worldview and the conclusion is at odds with the final authority he claims.

Let’s look at an example. Say that a Christian is having a conversation with a friend about miracles. The friend believes that all of reality can be studied and explained by science. The Christian of course believes that there is a transcendent God who can and does intervene in his creation through miracles. The friend can freely listen to all the evidence that the Christian has that Jesus performed miracles. He can hear about eyewitness testimony, evidence for the reliability of the Gospels, and so on. Yet because his final authority is natural science he cannot accept the Christian’s conclusion that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Instead he will insist that there is a natural explanation that was not available to the witnesses or that they could not understand. So long as he is able to appeal to the same final authority he will not accept the Christian conclusion. The friend remains a sinner who has exchanged the truth of God for a lie; in dogmatics we call this the noetic (“to the mind”) effect of sin. As Paul tells us, “the mind of the sinful nature is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be.” (Rom. 8:7).

So as Christians how are we to make an appeal to unbelievers if they cannot accept our line of reasoning? We’re going to answer this question in a series of posts but we’ll start with a well-known pair of verses from the book of Proverbs:

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Prov. 26:4-5)

These verses can actually teach us a lot about how to do apologetics. In Scripture, the fool is the one who rejects wise instruction. Because the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:7) the fool is the one who says in his heart that there is no God (Ps. 14:1). So just as we see in Romans 1, the fool in Scripture is the one who has exchanged the truth of God for a lie and the glory of the Creator for the images of created things; “professing to be wise they became fools.” He is the one who, following after the first Adam’s fall, seeks to be like God in determining good and evil for himself rather than obeying the commands of God.

In the book of Proverbs God gives us many instructions in how to interact with the fool who rejects the wise instruction that begins with the fear of the Lord. Some of it is found in these two verses. The wise instructor first tells us not to answer the fool according to his folly lest we become fools like him. Now when we understand that foolishness means rejecting God’s authority for our own then we recognize that we cannot debate the unbeliever according to his own authority structures. This is what we saw above. The naturalist cannot be convinced of supernatural occurrences on the basis of his naturalist beliefs. Miracles are impossible according to his authority structure. To agree to argue along those lines is to become foolish like him as we reject God’s revelation to us and work within autonomous and sinful belief structures. This means that we cannot work solely within the bounds of “evidential” apologetics. The rationalist cannot be convinced by an appeal to human reason. The empiricist cannot be convinced by an appeal to what can be known by the senses. We cannot answer the fool according to his folly in this manner without becoming fools like them in appealing to an authority other than God.

In the next verse we are given a seemingly opposed instruction. Now we are told to answer the fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes. I think that the commands not to answer and then to answer are related to how we engage the fool who says in his heart that there is no God. We do not answer him by trying to appeal to his own authority structure in trying to show that there is a God. We do not appeal to human reason to bring the rationalist to faith but to Scripture. This would be like trying to show a Muslim that Jesus Christ is God by appealing to the Koran even though the Koran explicitly denies the deity of Christ. Yet there is a way that Scripture commands us to answer the fool within the context of his own authority structure. We can do this because the unbeliever does know the Triune God even though he suppresses that knowledge. That knowledge is ultimately fundamental to an unbeliever’s being as a creature. He cannot escape it though he suppresses it and exchanges it for lies. Yet lies will ultimately have contradictions in them that reveal this suppression.

So the task of the apologist in answering the fool is to expose these contradictions caused by the unbeliever’s suppression of the knowledge of God. In the example above the Christian should ask the unbeliever about scientific laws and try to show that universal laws are impossible without the existence of an absolute God. The believer should try to show the rationalist that his human reason is not a sufficient ground for interpreting all of reality. Again, it is my case that this can be done on a very simple and individual level so long as the Christian realizes that he adopts the unbeliever’s authority for the purpose of showing that authority is insufficient. Because this post has gotten rather long we’ll continue on this next time.

An appeal to authority

We’ll continue our series on apologetics in this post. Last time we discussed what apologetics is. Our focus was on the fact that apologetics is not primarily intellectual argumentation but a defense of why we are Christians; of why we sanctify Jesus Christ as Lord in our hearts. This week we’ll take the first steps in discovering an apologetic method by trying to define the conflict that takes place at the heart of an apologetic encounter.

To begin, we’ve said before that apologetics is a conflict in worldviews. To break that out a little more we find that worldview differences stem from appeals to different sources of final authority. As Christians we hold that God speaking in his word is the highest authority. Rationalists hold that human reason is the highest authority. Ironically skeptics appeal to the same authority. An empiricist will finally appeal to what can be sensed and experienced. A Muslim will appeal to the Koran; a Jew to the Tanakh. So what we need to see is that apologetics is not just I believe something and this person believes something else but that we believe it on the basis of entirely different belief structures. From a Christian perspective John Frame helps to outline this:

We trust Jesus Christ as a matter of eternal life or death. We trust his wisdom beyond all other wisdom. We trust his promises above all others. He calls us to give him all our loyalty and not allow any other loyalty to compete with him (Deut. 6:4ff; Matt. 6:24; 12:30; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). We obey his law, even when it conflicts with lesser laws (Acts 5:29). Since we believe him more certainly than we believe anything else, he (and hence his Word) is the very criterion, the ultimate standard of trust. What higher standard could there possibly be? What standard is more authoritative? What standard is more clearly known to us (see Rom. 1:19-21)? What authority ultimately validates all other authorities?[1]

The above quote helps to outline the conflict with unbelief. No unbeliever can accept our standard for truth and knowledge. To do so would be to adopt our worldview and accept the invalidation of their own. So while the Christian appeals to Christ speaking in Scripture the unbeliever appeals to his own authority and standard of truth. The reason that this point is so fundamental for apologetics is that we cannot prove Christianity if we accept a different final authority. Rationalism, skepticism, empiricism, Islam, and Judaism do and must reject Christianity on the basis of their own worldview and authority structures. Christianity cannot be true if human reason, sense experience, or Allah are the ultimate authority. So the goal of apologetics remains to move someone from an appeal to a non-Christian authority to subjecting themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ in all things.

The apostle Paul demonstrates this point for us:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Rom. 1:18-25)

In this passage Paul outlines the problem of unbelief for us. We’re just going to outline a few things from this passage though we’ll come back to it in later posts. The chief point that Paul makes is that what is to be known about God is plain to all people because God has made it plain to them. This revelation is more than just God’s existence but is a revelation of something of his person and character. Because of this revelation all people are without excuse in the face of God’s wrath. God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of those who suppress the truth of the knowledge of God. The way that they do this is by exchanging the glory of God for images resembling created things, by exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and by worshipping the creature rather than the Creator. All of this is to say that they have exchanged the obedience that they owe to the sovereign Lord who authoritatively reveals himself and his will for other gods, or other standards of authority. Following after Adam in the Garden, they have chosen to listen to serpents, devils, and created things rather than to the divine command.

This passage helps us to see the necessity of calling someone to move from placing themselves under their own chosen authority to submitting to the Triune God. Cornelius Van Til was fond of saying that we can choose theonomy (God rule) or autonomy (self rule) with nothing in between. We may obey and follow God’s revelation or we may exchange it for worshipping something that he has created. There is no third option. So as Christians commanded to engage in apologetics we call unbelievers to submit to Jesus Christ. In future posts we’re going to try to unpack how we do this.


[1] John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994) 6-7.

Revelation and Reason

Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics, edited by K. Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton, is a collection of essays designed to further the understanding and application of many of the apologetic principles outlines by Cornelius Van Til. To be honest, what is presented in this book should not be new to anyone who has done much reading in Reformed apologetics, whether reading Van Til or his followers. That said, this book does still have great value as the authors move discussions further along than many of those other books on apologetics. For example, a number of early articles give detailed expositional and exegetical defense of how Van Tilian apologetics is ultimately Scriptural apologetics. Several other articles interact with more recent attacks on Van Tilian approaches such as Classical Apologetics by Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley. Still others are examples of Reformed apologetics in action as it is applied to more modern philosophical movements.

The following is a brief overview of the essays in the book. This is not a full review of the book by any stretch and will not interact with the essays with any detail but I will simply describe the essays and list which I think are most valuable.

1. Introduction by Scott Oliphint and Lane Tipton – Normally I would not mention the Introduction and Appendix in a review but a reader would be losing a lot if he or she skipped over these sections in this book. The Introduction is not particularly original but it is quite helpful. Oliphint and Tipton introduce the book but emphasizing both the necessity and importance of apologetics. They do this through a focus on 1 Peter 3. However they build up to Peter’s command to always be ready to give a reason for the hope within you by showing the importance and meaning of the section in the whole epistle. Well written and informative.

2. “Epistemological Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16” by Richard Gaffin – While Dr. Gaffin has written a number of essays and books with great importance and value to the Church, this was one of my favorite things by him to read. This is simply an exposition of 1 Cor. 2:6-16 with a focus on the implications of the passage for a Christian epistemology. This was a fantastic opening essay to the book.

3. “Resurrection, Proof, and Presuppositionalism: Acts 17:30-31” by Lane Tipton – This is also a worthwhile and important essay as Paul’s speech before the Aeropagus is often brought up by non-Van Tilian apologists as counter to Van Til’s understanding of a biblical and Reformed apologetic. Tipton careful exposits the passage to show that Paul is actually working from presuppositions of the Christian faith in his discourse, especially related to the resurrection. This essay was well organized and so very easy to read.

4. “The Irrationality of Unbelief: An Exegetical Study” by Scott Oliphint – Like the first two essays, Oliphint takes a topic that Van Til dealt with regularly (irrationality in non-Christian thought) and goes to demonstrate that rather than being merely a philosophical concept this can be demonstrated from Scripture. He focuses on Rom. 1:18ff in particular to demonstrate that not only is refusing to acknowledge, believe, and worship the true God a covenant breaking sin but that it is ultimately irrational. A good and helpful essay on the noetic effects of sin and the covenantal aspect of epistemology.

5. “The Case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics” by Moises Silva – When I saw the title of this essay I was a little surprised as it seemed out of place in a book on apologetics. When I finished the book it ended up being one of my favorites. A large focus of the essay was on common grace and God’s sovereignty in biblical interpretation. These are two topics of immense importance to apologetics. Silva’s essay does a lot to help the Christian apologist consider what he or she can use from unbelievers when defending the faith, especially given the sin and irrationality in all unbelief as presented by Oliphint. This was a great essay and also very well placed in the book.

6. “Paul’s Christological Interpretation of Creation and Presuppositional Apologetics” by Lane Tipton – This essay largely focuses on Paul’s argument in Colossians 2 telling the church not to seek philosophy but Christ. Tipton exposits this passage in light of the book to show how Christ as the ontological and redemptive-historical firstborn Son rules over all of our thought. Tipton is particularly good on the relationship of Christ’s divine and human natures (see also his articles in Justified in Christ and Resurrection and Eschatology) and I thought he did a good job of applying the exegetical considerations from the passage to apologetics.

7. “Divine Aseity and Apologetics” by John Frame – As always, I have to say that John Frame is an extraordinarily skilled writer and communicator and that shows again in this essay. Frame wants to show how God’s aseity (that he is wholly self-contained) influences and moves apologetic method and goals. Frame himself is very explicit that what he has to say in this essay is not original but instead is at the heart of Van Til’s apologetic. As such, I think that this essay would be very valuable to anyone seeking to start reading Van Til’s work as Frame’s clear manner of presenting his material would help them to grasp the foundation of Van Til’s work before moving into the particulars and applications.

8. “Consistently Reformed: The Inheritance and Legacy of Van Til’s Apologetic” by Michael Horton – This book presents Reformed apologetics from the perspective of a consistent application of Reformed theology. In the context of this essay it is especially theology proper that moves the discussion. Horton shows how the Creator-creature distinction applies to and motivates apologetics in our understanding of God, man, and unbelief. He presents all of this as an application of the covenant relationship between God and man. I think that this essay would be helpful to anyone trying to resolve the differences at the heart of the Van Til-Clark debate and is a helpful introduction to Reformed apologetics.

9. “A Confessional Apologetic” by Thom Notaro – The title really explains this essay. Reformed apologists often maintain (following after Van Til) that their apologetic is not new but is only the consistent application of Reformed theology in the defense of the faith. Notaro shows this but demonstrating the close relationship between Van Til’s apologetic and the Reformed Confessions, particularly the Westminster Standards. Part of the purpose is to show that a rejection of this apologetic method ultimately reveals a misunderstanding of some of the central doctrines in our confessions.

10. “Theologia Naturalis: A Reformed Tradition” by Jeff Jue – In this essay Jue seeks to respond to a premise pushed especially hard by Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley that Van Tilian apologists have departed from the traditional Reformed understanding of natural theology. Jue argues that Van Til even opened himself up to this criticism in several side comments that he made concerned the Post-Reformation scholastics. Jue responds by demonstrating that Reformed theologians have always treated natural theology the same way that Reformed apologists do today. For what it’s worth I’ve found that Jue’s work on the Westminster Divines and the Protestant Scholastics has always been interesting and informative much like most of Richard Muller’s work and that if you have any interest of sympathy for this accusation against Van Tilian apologetics then you will likely find this essay very informative.

11. “The Eschatological Implications of Genesis 2:15 for Apologetics” by William Dennison – For those not familiar with him, Dennison is a Biblical Theologian in the legacy of Meredith Kline. In this essay he shows that Adam’s task in the Garden of Eden was largely a priestly task. He then develops this task through redemptive-history to show that defending the faith is ultimately a task that belongs to all Christians as the church is a kingdom of priests. I thought that this essay was very interesting and appreciated its inclusion in the book. An essay like this helps to show that Reformed apologetics is built upon all theological disciplines and further distances it from accusations of being merely a philosophical fantasy.

12. “The Old-New Reformed Epistemology” by Scott Oliphint – In this essay Oliphint helps to build a consistent epistemology from Scripture and Reformed theology. In doing this he spends a lot of time interacting with Alvin Plantinga’s idea of basic beliefs, which is really a modern presentation of the thought of the Scottish philosopher and theologian Thomas Reid. This is a more explicitly philosophical essay than many in the book but those interested in philosophy, particularly those familiar with Reid and Plantinga, should find it very interesting.

13. “The Fate of Apologetics in an Age of Normal Nihilism” by Michael Payne – This was probably my least favorite essay in the book. It is not because the essay was bad but more because of the limited application. Starting with the essay by Oliphint preceding this one the last four articles all focus on methodology and application. This essay deals particularly with several modern nihilistic philosophers. I think that the major value of this essay is that it provides an example of applying the principles outlined in earlier eassys to an actually apologetic confrontation with a particular movement. For that reason you certainly should not skip it in reading this book but keep in mind that application is Payne’s goal.

14. “Turn! Turn! Turn! Reformed Apologetics and the Cultural Dimension” by William Edgar – Like the preceding essay, Edgar gives an application of Reformed apologetics to a certain movement. In this case it is the new humanism that is articulated by several well-known French philosophers (one would have to be familiar with modern French culture to realize exactly how important these figures are; there really is not an American equivalent). Edgar’s main point is that as apologists we need to be sensitive to cultural changes and movements and be prepared to adopt our application of the principles in the preceding essays to new movements and cultural turns. As an application of that advice I think you’ll find this essay helpful.

15. “Van Til and the Transcendental Argument” by Don Collett – Collett focuses more on the application of Van Til’s method than any of the other writers. In particular he puts forth a presentation of Van Til’s apologetic in terms of formal logic. Those familiar will find this essay quite helpful. In particular Collett shows that Van Til is giving more than merely another version of Anselm’s ontological argument or instructing Christians to merely attack non-Christian philosophies with reduction ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd). I think this is essay is helpful but might have been better placed before the essays by Payne and Edgar and would recommend reading the book that way and seeing how they apply the method that Collett presents.

16. Appendix: “Cornelius Van Til and the Reformation of Christian Apologetics” by Scott Oliphint – Again, I think that the reader would be poorly served by closing the book before reading the appendix. Here Oliphint shows the wholistic application of Van Til’s apologetic. Van Til dealt with people at the deepest and most basic levels of unbelief. Oliphint helps to show that here and in doing so the reader can see how this apologetic method always applies to any conversation with unbelievers. Reformed apologetics ultimately seeks to present the whole of the Christian faith to the unbeliever and then to give them God’s demand that they respond in repentance and faith. Readers should take some time to read this appendix.

On the whole I have to say that this was a very well-written and organized book (the exception being the order of the last three essays). Again, there isn’t a lot in here that is new and it will be most helpful and interesting to those with some training in apologetics. That said, I think that it should be helpful in further grounding Reformed apologetics in Scripture and in the Reformed faith.

A Formal Introduction to the Transcendental Argument

A Formal Introduction to the Transcendental Argument
By Matthew Pickens

Some of you may already be familiar with formal logic (if not then this post should still make sense but I do think it worthwhile to do some basic introduction to logic work – any text book for an introductory college course should be sufficient although Gordon Clark, a Christian philosopher and theology in the 20th century, co-wrote a text book on logic that is pretty good). The purpose of this post is not to be a complete presentation of the transcendental argument but rather simply to give a brief introduction to it in formal terms.

So-called evidential apologists[1] like R.C. Sproul and John Gerstner tend to argue along the lines of inference or implication. So for example they would use the traditional theological proofs to show that God’s existence can be inferred from certain things in creation or that those things imply God’s existence. We’ll use the example of the teleological argument here. The teleological argument states that the appearance of design in the universe implies a designer. The common analogy used is that of a watch found on a beach. No one would assume that the watch came out of nowhere but would assume that there was a watchmaker. Formally the argument could be stated this way, where D is design and G is God’s existence:

D implies G
D
Therefore G[2]

When we turn to the transcendental argument we find that rather than dealing with implication we deal instead with presupposition. So where the above use of the teleological argument says that design implies God the transcendental argument would use this argument to say that either design or lack of design presupposes God. That means that we cannot say anything meaningful about the order or lack of order in the universe apart from God’s existence. Bas van Fraasen has helpfully defined presupposition in logic as “A presupposes B if and only if A is neither true nor false unless B is true.”[3] Formally this would be stated:

A presupposes B if and only if:
If A is true then B is true, or,
If A is false then B is true.

This helps us to see how the transcendental argument says much more than the evidential argument. The evidential argument presents design in the universe to the questioner and from there infers or implies the existence of God as the designer. The transcendental argument deals with either the questioner who sees design or the questioner who sees a lack of design in the universe. What it does is argue that in order to make a meaningful statement about the universe one must presuppose the existence of God (specifically the Triune absolute self-existence, self-referential, and self-revealing God of Christianity). So this would restate the transcendental argument like this:

D presupposes G
D
Therefore G

Or:

D presupposes G
~D
Therefore G[4]

Moving closer to application we have to ask what this means in terms of our apologetics and evangelism. Again, I’m going to be brief here though in a minute I’ll recommend a number of books on the subject for further investigation. As Christians, particularly those of us in a Presbyterian or Reformed tradition, we hold that the Triune God is the Creator of the entire world and is thus the sovereign covenant Lord of it and all its aspects. All things are in personal relationship to him. Therefore all things in this world presuppose the Triune God for both their existence and meaning. Cornelius Van Til phrased this in a number of different ways but here is one instance:

Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the directly Biblical field, archeology, or in general history, is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position. But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer’s philosophy of fact. A really fruitful historical apologetic argues that every fact is and must be such as proves the truth of the Christian theistic position.[5]

All of this is to say that all facts presuppose the Christian position. As God is the wholly sovereign Creator and Lord this is not only about the facts of what and how things are but also the facts of reasoning. Everything presupposes the existence of the Triune God. Refusing to acknowledge this is both irrational and sinful. So we see two things about the thinking of non-believers when it comes to argumentation. First we see anything they thinking about, the fact that they think at all, presupposes the Triune God. They cannot make a meaningful statement or even participate in the argument unless the Triune God is. Therefore for them to say anything about design, causality, morality, existence, knowledge, or anything at all relies upon the point that the Christian wishes to make. Second, the unbeliever suppresses the truth of this in unrighteousness and tries to fit the facts, which can only make sense in the Christian worldview, into their own autonomous thought structures. More than not making sense this is ultimately a sinful act that betrays their covenantal rebellion against God, not only in their deeds but in their thinking (Rom. 1:18ff; 1 Cor. 2:6ff; Prov. 1:7). Thus it is not fruitful to simply present facts as if unbelievers will understand them on the same basis as believers and reason to the same conclusions. Instead their entire worldview for interpreting those facts and understanding them must be challenged. Van Til expresses it this way:

To speak of man’s relation to God as being covenantal at every point is merely to say that man deals with the personal God everywhere. Every manipulation of any created fact is, as long as man is not a sinner, a covenant affirming activity. Every manipulation of any fact, as soon as man is a sinner, is a covenant-breaking activity.[6]

Moving very briefly into application this has some enormous implications for how we do apologetics. It means that the so-called evidential apologetics as outlined above are insufficient for combating unbelief. The first expression of the teleological argument is not sensitive to the fact that after Adam’s fall all of humanity is in sinful rebellion against the creating and covenanting God. Unbelievers may freely accept the validity, perhaps even the soundness, of the argument while continuing in unbelief by asserting a designer of some sort but not the Triune God of Christianity. Only the transcendental method attacks unbelief at the deepest levels by acknowledging that all men are either covenant-breakers in Adam or covenant-keepers in Christ. There is no third option. The job of the apologist and the evangelist is not to meet the unbeliever as if they were a neutral seeker who merely weighed the evidences but instead to engage him and expose the sin of suppressing innate knowledge of God.

In terms of methods the best way to do this is what Van Til and others have called the “for the sake of the argument” approach. The apologist should adapt the unbeliever’s presuppositions for a brief time to show that under those conditions it is impossible to say anything meaningful about the subject at hand. They should then invite the unbeliever to think about Christian presuppositions “for the sake of the argument” to show how all of reality is understandable only within the Christian worldview. It would be beyond the course of this essay to discuss this in detail here but there are several introductory books on Reformed apologetics that would help to show application of these principles (and many other biblical principles) in the course of a simple apologetic or evangelistic encounter.

• Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction by John Frame - I think that this is probably the best introduction to Reformed apologetics simply because Frame is such a clear writer and thinker. I've found this book to be excellent and helpful both in understanding Reformed apologetics and also in applying them.
• The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith by Scott Oliphint - I hope to post a full review of this book soon but I think that this is a great book introducing Reformed apologetics as it shows how that apologetic is not driven by philosophy but by the consistent application of Scripture's teaching to the realm of apologetics and evangelism. Oliphint does not spend as much time on application as Frame does but I think that these two books (or possibly this and the next recommendation) can be used in concert to great benefit.
• Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion by William Edgar - I have only recently started reading some books by Dr. Edgar though I have read a number of essays and articles that he's written. To be honest I just got this book myself and have not finished it though I am very impressed so far. I think that this fits very well with the two books above. This book, like Professor Frame's, deals not just with apologetic principles but with the specific application of them in persuading an unbeliever. Again, I think that it fits very nicely with Dr. Oliphint's work to give a wholesome approach to apologetics.
• Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith by Greg Bahnsen - This book is more complex and advanced than the others but it is excellent. Dr. Bahnsen was a fantastic apologist who engaged in a number of public debates with notable unbelievers (not only atheists but also agnostics and proponents of false religions). This is an extraordinarily comprehensive and helpful book for it's length (less than 300 pages). I would still recommend working through one or two of the above before getting at this but if you wouldn't be thrown off too badly by starting here either as Bahnsen was an able communicator even on some difficult topics.
• Christian Apologetics (Second Edition) by Cornelius Van Til and edited by William Edgar - One of my desires is to see more Christians, both pastors and lay people, read more of Van Til's works. Van Til provided a great service to the church in helping to rearticulate a fully confessional and Reformed apologetic that was faithful to Scripture and serious in its application. I will admit that Van Til was not a very skilled writer and is often very difficult to understand. That is why this book is at the bottom of this list. I would really like to see people read at least two of the above before tackling this one (and this is a topic where I would be happy to interact with you over e-mail as you read through any of these books). I think that you would be very rewarded by doing so. P&R Publishing reprinting several of Van Til's works with editorial comments from Scott Oliphint and William Edgar is a great blessing for the church. These comments help to explain certain emphases and terms in Van Til's writing that he simply assumes the reader understands. This is a short and relatively cheap book so it shouldn't be hard to get and read through once quickly for overview and again more slowly for comprehension. I do think that this is probably the best entry point into his writings.

[1] I say “so-called” as often the term “evidential” is used as if presuppositional and transcendental apologetics did not make use of evidences. This is clearly not true to anyone familiar with the discussion. “Classical” is also often used to imply that the apologetic put forth by Sproul, Gerstner, Lindsley, and others is the way that the church has always done apologetics. This is also not true as the work of Robert Muller shows. These terms are useful as they point to a certain type of apologetics as opposed to the presuppositional and transcendental supported here but the implications often drawn from them are false.
[2] It should be noted that all of the formal articulations of arguments in this brief essay are very much abbreviated and simplified.
[3] Cited in “Van Til and the Transcendental Argument” by Don Collett in Reason and Revelation: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics ed. by K. Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007), 269.
[4] Here it should be noted that this line or argumentation is based upon the modus ponens. The modus tollens could not be simply applied here as the negation of G would not imply the negation of D. Instead it would say that we could not conclude anything about D at all but would say that D is neither true nor false.
[5] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: P&R Publishing, 1967), 199.
[6] Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Philadelphia: P&R Publishing, 1972), 69-70.