Category: Presuppositional Apologetics

Posted on

Charge to Athanasius Presbytery

The life of the ministry is a life of theological self-giving. The minister gives away wisdom, learning, and life in everything he does. The very clerical collar he wears is a sign of that sacrificial life.

Paul’s words to Timothy fit this profile:

…give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. 16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

A minister must rightly divide the word of truth. He must be a compelling interpreter, a respecter of the Word’s purity, internal logic, and redemptive flow. This is the standard for ministers as they come to be examined, and it is the expectation of those must give an account to our Great Shepherd.

Among the pastoral candidates who came for ordination in Geneva under the tutelage of the Company of Pastors, the vast majority were properly equipped theologically; they were not ashamed of the Word and their calling. However, some of them lacked theological gravitas prompting pastor Antoine de La Faye to say that a few were not even “qualified to watch goats.” Those were often sent home to study for a season or encouraged to find other professions. It reminds me of the advice my old professor Steve Brown gave to a young man after hearing him preach: “Young man, can you do anything else?” This is far from a harsh assessment; indeed, not many should be teachers.

Calvin viewed ministerial preparation as essential to developing a healthy city; thus, putting into place learning academies and offering opportunities for theological growth became an essential component of the city’s learning revolution. Calvin’s zeal for proper training of pastoral candidates came from what he viewed as a lack of equipped pastors in the day. Further, there were some clear signs that “vagabond ministers” traveling around Europe were causing dissension and assuming leadership positions “without oversight.”

The impetus for pastoral training was an outworking of the general premise Calvin had for regular Christian living. One could say that for Calvin, the process of doing theology was to adore God, and one could only adore God rightly by learning theology.

The training process equipped candidates to endure the lengthy but careful ordination process, which included examining piety and theology. “The Venerable Company” had a disposition towards candidates whose training included the liberal arts, biblical exegesis, theology, and practical experience. The preparatory season occurred in community settings where candidates were encouraged to attend Hebrew and Greek lectures and sharpen their rhetorical and dialectic skills.

Certain days were set aside for pastoral candidates to deliver sermons in the presence of members of the Venerable Company and test their abilities to debate issues confronting the civil and ecclesiastical scene of the day. With the learning process completed, Calvin and Beza, and other members of the Company of Pastors led the ordination process. Biblical knowledge took a central focus in the examining process under the assumption that if a candidate did not know his Bible well, his ministry would not prosper under God’s guidance.

The ordination examination had three sections. First, there was an examination for the candidates, which lasted for about two hours on various theological issues about the biblical text. Second, following the principles laid in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, the pastoral candidate underwent examination concerning his moral standing in his familial and public life. Finally, there were trial sermons where the candidate provided an astute presentation of a text to reveal his ability to properly divide the word of truth and his skills to handle the text. The process was long and tedious, but Calvin believed that if a new reformation was to inundate the land, ministers should be men of learning committed to the authority of the Bible and pious servants of the great Shepherd, Jesus Christ.

It is our privilege today to continue with the next three candidates for pastoral ministry. The examining committees have affirmed that these men have shown enough knowledge in all these fields to come before the presbytery. And they have assured me that they are equipped to enter into Gospel ministry. We hope that these examinations will serve more as additional confirmation of their call, and we are eager to rejoice that God has called these brothers to share in the life of theological self-giving for the sake of the flock.

Let us pray: O God of eternal praise, you have equipped and called these your servants to the frontlines of Gospel activity in your holy church. Remind them of the gracious call to serve your flock, and give them the wisdom to remember, rejoice, and reflect on your kindness through Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd, Amen.

Posted on

Moving Forward in the Biden Era

Let me go ahead and speak my mind because I have been somewhat shy lately, so here it goes a day after 46 took office. What we are witnessing now is the demise of evangelical culture and the solutions to resurrecting this culture has to come from the remnants within.

There is no way around it, and here are some things we ought to expect in the days and months ahead. First and foremost, churches that uphold orthodoxy on Sundays will have to uphold it throughout the week. And that means that you cannot subscribe to Leftist ideologies, which are the exact opposite of the conservation of classic traditional principles of morality. You simply cannot affirm the legitimacy of “gay Christians” or Leftist causes and remain soberly faithful to the Gospel. It’s historically and logically impossible.

My suspicion is that what we will see in the months ahead is a coalition of forces from conservative churches that do not want to see this country collapse under the weight of inglorious bastards. They may even share differing theological perspectives, but they are united in desiring a nation that understands reality. Conservatives need to see that if we have transgender activists in the White House, we need to have godly men and women in our little houses, which means it’s time to start punching the right things, rather than wasting time on foolish causes. In my estimation, the University of Woke City is out of the equation for my children, even if it means losing a prestigious medal made out of kale products.

Secondly, I also believe that such churches that hold firm to conservative causes and who speak truth to high towers will likely grow numerically in the months to come. If these same churches do not cower to the voices of illogical leaders, and if they continue to do those same sacred duties, they will actually be on firm standing as their local bodies will begin to attract the presence of people who are simply fed up with the liberalizing approach of their own churches. If your current congregation seems to be headed towards their fourth sermon series on critical race theory and begins to denigrate the conservative agenda because we don’t uphold “Love Thy Neighbor” as they deem best, you need to begin thinking carefully about your priorities. I have written about how to leave a church wisely, which does not mean you wait until this or that passes before having a conversation. Move speedily and find out where in the world your church is headed in 2021.

Let me also stress the need to pick up Machen’s “Christianity and Liberalism” as a guide through these trying times. He noted a long time ago that “The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from “controversial” matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life.” This is not the time to act as if the other side is going to standby silently while you parade your radical free speech proclaiming “Jesus is Lord!” They will not! They are eager to change your vocabulary. And, following Machen’s logic, this is certainly no longer the time for gnostic subtleties like “We are not of this world” or “We look to another country.” A quick read will tell you definitively that this world is ours (Rom. 4:13), and that God’s world has come down. As the hymn states unequivocally, “This is my Father’s world!”

The Great Commission is given to the Church, and now it’s time to let it be known that our agenda is to baptize millions of disciples young and old who will bring holy disarray to any living body that rejects Messiah Jesus. You can expect us to be civil and lucid in our presentation, but we will not tickle your ears.

The reason liberalism is so enticing is that it allows you to make friends everywhere under the guise of sweet orthodoxy. But the fragrance of orthodoxy is foul to the world. Further, you have noticed by now that liberalism is deeply religious. Just take yesterday’s prayer where the Right Reverend of Theological Drunkenness ended by saying, “In the strong name of our collective faith;” that stunt was a symbol of a new body of politics that has absolutely no interest in the grammar of orthodoxy. The religiosity of the Left is good in the sense that it encourages us to know where God’s revelation is found and where it isn’t and also to clarify that atheism doesn’t exist; what does exist are religious people who either love the truth or willingly suppress it.

My deep and sincere hope is that this entire season revealed those who prefer the allotment of Job’s wife rather than the oil of Aaron’s beard. The more the Church proceeds with truth in this season, the more she will be united in the kingdom and the more little churches will grow in numbers and wisdom. But the more she acts as a collective faith, she will shrink into oblivion and her children’s children will have no inheritance.

Posted on

New Publication from Kuyperian Press: A Case for Infant Baptism

Kuyperian Press was founded to provide works that are accessible to the layman in the parish. In this new work, Dr. Gregg Strawbridge provides a wonderful summary of the case for infant baptism in the Bible.

What makes this booklet different?

Strawbridge has provided various charts and biblical connections making the case that the Bible’s promise to the children of the covenant has not been forgotten in the New Testament.

“In this little book, Gregg Strawbridge provides a clear, concise and compelling case for infant baptism. He anticipates the important questions, provides succinct answers, and thereby adds a highly valuable resource to the current conversation.”

–          John G. Crawford, Author of Baptism is Not Enough

 

Posted on

Joe Torres and Presuppositional Apologetics

At 12 Central/1Eastern, I will be interviewing Joe Torres on presuppositional apologeticsat Trinity Talk.

Joe summarizes our interview as follows:

On  Thursday, July 2nd, I’ll be discussing the topic of presuppositional apologetics on Trinity Talk with Uri and Jarrod.

Uri and I have known each other for several years now. We’ve worked together and attended seminary together. Now he’s a pastor, and i’m a professor. We have our theological disagreements, but we both love discussing them as iron sharpens iron.

In the interview we’ll be talking about something that’s view close to our hearts, a robust, powerful, and God-glorifying way of defending the faith. Here’s a sample of the kind of questions we’ll discuss:

a) What is apologetics?
b) What is presuppositional apologetics?
c) How does presuppositionalism differ with other apologetic positions?
d) How does a presuppositional apologetics answer charges from atheism?

Posted on

Bahnsen’s Lost Book

Last year during the CREC General Council, I spent a weekend with Pastor Randy Booth. I have told many that those two days I received from Randy some of the most profitable pastoral insights I have ever received. Randy is the owner of Covenant Media Foundation. He continues to make available the audio works and books of the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen. When I was with him last year, he told me that they had found some manuscripts that Dr. Bahnsen had never completed. Joel McDurmon says that that manuscript was intended as a book that was edited by Gary North some decades ago. Nevertheless, in light of Bahnsen’s thoroughness in book writing and Gary North’s pressing Greg for the manuscript to be completed, Bahnsen was never able to use that manuscript for that particular book.  Now, that manuscript is going to be published by American Vision in about eight weeks.  It will serve to continue the faithful Biblical and Reformed understanding of apologetics.

Posted on

Van Til, Evidence, and Fideism

van_til.jpgThe charge that Cornelius Van Til was a fideist has come from many camps. Clark Pinnock (now an open theist), leveled many attacks some decades ago attempting to discredit the proliferation of favorable responses to Presuppositionalism in the Reformed community. But again, Pinnock, Geisler, and others were blinded by their semi-Pelagian assumptions. In 1984, the first Reformed response to Presuppositionalism emerged. A triad of authors: Sproul,[1] Gerstner,[2] and Lindsley wrote Classical Apologetics.[3] The book traces the history of philosophy, apologetic methodologies, and provides what they consider “a reconstruction of Natural Theology.” The latter part of the book devotes itself to a critique of Van Til’s apologetic.

The central charge against Van Til is that he was a fideist; one who has thrown away reason in exchange for emotions and faith. In a section entitled Between Two Fideisms, the authors assert that presuppositional thought “has boldly rejected the traditional theistic proofs and Christian evidences.”[4] The authors, in one sense, define well the different starting points of the classical and presuppositional approach. The classical approach believes that the ultimate starting point is human autonomy, whereas, Van Til argued that God is the ultimate starting point. In light of this affirmation, critics of Van Til argue that his disciples believe in blind faith, and hence the charge of fideist. However, Van Til never denied the use of logic or rationality. In fact, as he argued in his Introduction to Systematic Theology: “The gift of logical reason was given by God to man in order that he might order the revelation of God for himself” (256). So, it is not that Van Til and his disciples deny logic or reason, it is that they deny a certain use of logic or reason. The authors of Classical Apologetics misunderstand the nature of proof and evidence. It is perfectly legitimate to use evidence and proofs for God’s existence, but they must be used properly; against the background of the nature of God.

[1] According to Professor Frame, Sproul is an honorary Presuppositionalist because he affirms the need to assume God in a theistic sense. In my opinion, Sproul has softened a bit to Van Til’s ideas in the last ten years, though still a strong advocate of autonomous reasoning.[2] Gerstner, who has gone to be with the Lord, was truly the father of Classical Apologetics in the Reformed tradition. He was highly influential in R.C.’s thoughts.[3] Sproul, Gerstner, & Lindsley. Classical Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.[4] Ibid. 185.

Posted on

A Reformed View of Apologetics, Part 2

One of the assertions of a Reformed view of apologetics is that apart from God’s revelation, man cannot account for anything, or as Van Til once put it: “…the atheists cannot account for accounting.” It is the “voluntary revelation” of a gracious God that leads us to think His thoughts after Him. Once again Van Til:

He must therefore be known for what He is, and known to the extent that He is known, by authority alone.[1]

The Christian Reformed apologist can rightly boast that his system or method for apologetics endeavor is far superior to his opponent. The Christian argues presuppositionially; God is the all in all of apologetic encounter. Though our apologetic is superior, there is a humbling sense when we acknowledge that we are solely dependent on God’s grace in revelation for our interpretation of the world.

When we spouse this position, some may say that it is theologically immature to assume things before we enter into a formal discussion. However, the reality is that no one enters into a discussion neutrally. We all reason presuppositionally! For the Thomist, “human reasoning” is his presupposition; for the Reformed thinker, God is the presupposition. Van Til summarizes this:

Psychologically, acceptance on authority precedes philosophical argument; but when, as epistemologically self-conscious grown-ups, we look into our own position, we discover that unless we may presuppose such a God as we have accepted on authority, the Moment will have no significance.[2]

Part 1 A Reformed View of Apologetics

[1] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 8.[2] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 8-9.

Posted on

A Reformed View of Apologetics, Part 1

Editor’s Note: In these posts, I have tried to offer a simple introduction to Presuppositional apologetics. Many in our day are unaware of the incredible influence of Professor Cornelius Van Til. These posts serve to distinguish the Reformed View of apologetics from Thomistic approaches and to encourage Christian thinkers to self-consciously presuppose God’s existence in every apologetic encounter.

Just as Calvinism distinguishes itself from other systems of thought in the area of cultural transformation,[1] so too, does Calvinism differ itself in the area of epistemology.[2] The superiority of the Reformed tradition over other philosophical approaches to epistemology is even clearer when we examine the foundation of their thinking.

We are how we reason; we reason how we were made to reason. Though Christian humanity is filled with dignity, we are also filled with sin. This is what some call the “noetic effects of the fall.” Simply put, our minds are in the “valley of the blind.”[3] Our new humanity rescues us from our autonomous epistemology. It is for this very reason that we are to think as God intends us to think.

180px-cornelius_van_til.jpgThe Reformed tradition differs substantially from Roman Catholic, Arminian, and atheistic thought.[4] All three of these systems begin their reasoning process from an autonomous framework. They all follow a Thomistic[5] approach to reason, and hence, do not begin as God intends them to begin. God’s intention is that the Christian begin his thinking with God’s counsel as the presupposition of all reasoning. The consequences of denying God’s counsel as a presupposition to all thought is disastrous. As Van Til summarizes:

Romanism and Arminianism[6] have virtually allowed that God’s counsel need not always and everywhere be taken as our principle of individuation. This is to give license to would-be autonomous man, permitting him to interpret reality apart from God.[7]

The Reformed thinker cannot fathom reality apart from God’s revelation. On the other hand, autonomous man cherishes-for the sake of reason-non-Christian presuppositions. Our standing before God is one of gratitude. We are grateful that God has redeemed our minds to think His ways and not ours. As Van Til powerfully concludes:

The Reformed believer knows that he himself has been taken out of a world of misinterpretation and place in the world of truth by the initiative of God.[8]

—————————————

[1] See my articles on Abraham Kuyper on the Abraham Kuyper archive list.

[2] Epistemology refers to “how we know things.”

[3] This is the language used by Cornelius Van Til.

[4] For instance, consider atheist George Smith’s methodology. In his debate with Professor Bahnsen he stressed that his philosophy is Aristotelian. This form of reasoning was later picked up by Thomas Aquinas.

[5] By Thomistic, I mean the works of Thomas Aquinas, who strongly emphasized the use of natural reason to come to theistic conclusions.

[6] Arminianism is a system of doctrine that teaches that man has the free will to choose or reject God, and his salvation is dependent on a cooperative effort.

[7] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 7.

[8] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 7.

Posted on

Rushdoony and the Inescapability of Religion

In 1978, Rousas Rushdoony wrote his influential book, The One and the Many.1 In it, he argued that every culture is inherently religious. The makeup of a society will reflect the religious inclinations of the people. The faith of the modern age, argued Rushdoony, is humanism:

A religious belief in the sufficiency of man as his own lord, his own source of law, his own savior. Instead of God and His law-word as the measure of all things, humanism has made man the measure of reality.

No man can escape the centrality of faith in their lives. Religious neutrality is impossible. The more one avoids the question, the stronger his religiosity becomes. As with humanism, Christianity cannot avoid the consequences of its faith in contemporary society. In the words of Rushdoony, “every culture is a religious externalized, a faith incarnated into life and action.” Christianity is by its very nature an active faith, an activist religion.

Activism can be described also by its common assertion of pacifism. If a Christian decides to live only to self and not engage society around him, he is acting against the cultural mandate. It is always an activist faith. Even pacifism is active in denying activism. Pacifists have a cause, and it is just as active as those who are idealists.

The result of many years of what I call “negative activism”2 is a completely defensive tactic against humanistic faith. What the church is doing today is retreating from her call to engage, thinking that God has not called us to be active; they are by nature being active opponents of Christianity.

 

  1. R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many (Fairfax, VA:Thoburn Press, 1978), 371-375 [↩ back]
  2. Negative activism is synonymous with pacifism. By retreating, some Christians are actually being active supporters of those who oppose the Christian faith [↩ back]
Posted on

Ten Years after Greg Bahnsen

images.jpgOn December 10th, a group of friends, associates and admirers will gather for a dinner to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the passing of a man who was hardly a household name, but perhaps ought to be. He is the Christian apologist Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.

Dr. Bahnsen was opined by many as the most prolific Christian apologist in the last quarter of the 20th century in terms of defending the Christian perspective against the assaults of atheism. His 1985 debate with atheist scholar, the late Gordon Stein, was dubbed The Great Debate, and remains a classic as well as a benchmark in Christian apologetics.