The
recent renewal of interest in the field of apologetics is something that we
ought to thank God for. What it has revived are thoughtful answers to the
challenges posed on the Christian faith, and thus eradicating over-simplistic
claims of its purported irrationality. Yet, it should be noted that theological
convictions varies amongst people. For example, there are different conclusions
on the condition of Man after the Fall. This is significant because different
theological convictions lead to different apologetic approaches. As such, careful
consideration is required to determine whether one’s theological conviction and
apologetic method are consistent and if they do interpret each other.
This essay seeks to examine
the consistency of a particular method in apologetics, namely covenantal
apologetics, with its claim of being “Reformed”. [1] First, an initial Reformed theological framework on
the condition of man is provided. Second, it presents a summary of covenantal
apologetics. Third, it discuss if covenantal apologetics is indeed consistent
with Reformed theology.
Providing a Reformed theological
framework
All of
Mankind is involved in some kind of a relationship with God by way of covenant.
Due to the vast distance between God and us by virtue of the Creator-creature
distinction, the only way in which His creatures can come to an understanding
of Him is, as expressed in Westminster Confession of Faith 7.1, by an act of
voluntary condescension on God’s part. However, when Adam represented the human
race and broke the covenant that God made with him, it brought us into an
estate of misery and despair.
One of the hallmarks of the
Reformed faith is emphasizing the comprehensiveness of sin’s impact on the
whole man. As explicated in the Canons of Dort, “all men are conceived in sin,
and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil,
dead in sin, and in bondage thereto”. [2] Another way of expressing
this is that man is totally depraved, as popularly derived from the acrostic
TULIP. Due to the result of the Fall as seen in Genesis 3, the rest of Mankind
finds itself spiritually dead in Adam (Romans 5:15, 17). James Montgomery Boice
noted that “Like a spiritual corpse, he is unable to make a single move toward
God, think a right thought about God, or even respond to God”. [3]
God has
revealed Himself to and through His creation manifestly (Romans 1:19), but proper
acknowledgement and worship was lost due to man’s rebellion towards God. The
extent to which sin affects us is comprehensive in scope. It affects every
faculty of ours, including the mind and heart (Romans 1:21). Westminster
Confession of Faith 6.2 encapsulates this well as follows:
By this sin they fell from their original
righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly
defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
As a result of being dead in our trespasses and
sins (Ephesians 2:1), our hearts do not acknowledge God for who He is and
instead seek to worship the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). And
yet, God alone is worthy of our worship as all other forms of worship are
idolatrous (Exodus 20:3). The Psalmist comments on the irrationality of unregenerate
man by stating that “the fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”” (Psalm
14:1)
As stated
earlier, sin affects our cognitive faculty such that we are, by ourselves, unable
to interpret the facts of the Universe as properly defined by God. Creation,
which is the “theatre of God’s glory” as stated by John Calvin, we require the
Scriptures to aid our interpretation of the world. As Cornelius Van Til
(1895-1987) commented:
In practice, this means that, since sin has
come into the world, God’s interpretation of the facts must come in finished,
written form and be comprehensive in character. God continues to reveal himself
in the facts of the created world but the sinner needs to interpret every one
of them in the light of Scripture. [4]
To conclude this brief section, it is
significant to take into account the entire scope of biblical anthropology in
terms of man’s fallen nature because it affects our understanding of how we
defend and commend the faith to unregenerate men. Being spiritually dead in
their sins, they are unable to, by their own efforts, ascend to a proper
acknowledgment of who God is. They require the “spectacles of Scripture” to
interpret properly creation in its entirety. With this theological background,
we turn to an examination of covenantal apologetics as a system of defending
the faith.
Summary of Covenantal
Apologetics
The term
“covenantal apologetics”, or once commonly termed “presuppositional
apologetics”, is a method of defending the faith that seeks to be a theological
apologetic at every point. Its unique feature lies in the fact that it attempts
to defend Christian theism throughout, and not generic theism that may contain
shared features with other theistic religions. As K. Scott Oliphint puts it, “a
belief in theism that is not Christian theism is a sinful suppression of the
truth. It masks, rather than moves toward, true knowledge of the triune God.” [5]
Given that understanding, the covenantal apologist then seeks to begin with
God, which means that “we stand squarely on Christian truth, including a
Christian understanding of God, when we engage in our defense.” [6]
How,
then, does covenantal apologetics proceed in its defense of the Christian
faith? It essentially comprises of a two-pronged approach comprising defense
and offense. Firstly, it commits to an absolute, covenantal antithesis between
Christian and non-Christian thought. If Christianity is true, then by
definition anything outside of its contours is false at the outset. An analogy
would be to consider how genuine monetary notes are identified. By
understanding how authentic notes looks and feels like, counterfeit notes are
identified as fake as they do not fulfil the corresponding requirements. What
this implies is that non-Christian systems of thought are not able to stand given
its own principles, and only Christianity is able to do so. An example of
this is the difficulty of accounting for morality within a naturalistic
framework. What the covenantal apologist does is to show and reduce to
absurdity one’s position when held to its logical conclusion (reductio ad
absurdum). This “Quicksand Quotient” informs the apologist at the beginning
of his engagement that the ground which the unbeliever stands on is sinking and
unable to hold its own. [7] And as the old hymn goes, “On Christ the
solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.” This briefly covers the
defensive aspect of covenantal apologetics.
Secondly,
upon setting the above context, covenantal apologetics then presents the
Christian faith positively. From a covenantal apologetic viewpoint, it should
be noted right at the outset that the foundational truths of the Christian
faith, such as the death and resurrection of Christ, and the necessity of
saving faith, are not merely set forth as probably true to the unbeliever
from a covenantal apologetic viewpoint. By presenting such truths as being
merely probable, even to the extent of 99% probability, it will ultimately
concede that these claims of Scripture could probably be untrue as well, which
denigrates all that Scripture stands for.
Rather, covenantal
apologetics engages the Bible as the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16) and presents
it in its fullness to the unbeliever. Even in the presentation of the faith
content (logos), it ought to be done in a manner that captures a
disposition of gentleness and respect (ethos) and considers the overall
context of the audience (pathos). This presents the offensive portion of
this method. In a sense, there is little to no distinction between covenantal
apologetics and evangelism. Responding to a criticism of not elucidating a
distinction between the two, Van Til replied:
I am not convinced by the evidence from
Scripture which you cite that any sharp distinction between them is required or
even justified. My defense of the truth of Christianity is, as I think of it,
always, at the same time, a witness to Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the
Life. We do not really witness to Christ adequately unless we set forth the
significance of his person and work for all men and for the whole of their
culture. [8]
This two-pronged approach of defence and
offence captures the essence of how a covenantal apologetic works. Far from
toning down the importance of rigorous thinking as some might object,
covenantal apologetics requires careful consideration of the underlying
presuppositions engaged while simultaneously demanding the necessity of no
compromise. [9]
An Analysis of Covenantal
Apologetics
At this juncture, it will do
well to analyse how covenantal apologetics is consistent in relation to its
claim of adhering to the Reformed faith. This can be seen in three ways: denying
the notion of neutrality between the believer and the unbeliever, the use of reductio
argumentation in our engagement, and accounting for the Fall of man in its
entirety.
First, with a serious
emphasis on the antithesis that is present between those in Christ and those in
Adam, covenantal apologetics denies that there is any point of neutrality
between believers and unbelievers. What this means is that there are no facts
which are held by both parties that is not deeply informed by their religious
presuppositions. [10] As such, classical apologetics’ (with
advocates such as William Lane Craig and R. C. Sproul) emphasis on establishing
common grounds of agreement with the unbelievers, such as the laws of logic,
does not accord well with covenantal apologetics since the foundations of both
parties are fundamentally different. [11]
For instance, one of the
well-known arguments for the existence of God is the cosmological argument,
which argues for the existence of God as first cause. [12] This
argument involves a mutual agreement of the law of causality as foundational,
and thus agreed upon, in order to proceed. At the end of the argumentation, the
unbeliever may conclude that there may be something which caused the Universe
into existence. But what happens at the end of the philosophical milieu? Since
the Gospel is not brought to the unbeliever, he remains in a state of unbelief.
Furthermore, he interprets this “cause” by virtue of his unbelief into an
idolatrous image that does not resemble the true and living God of the Bible.
How are we, in our apologetic endeavour, being wholly faithful to the triune
God if our argumentation provides the avenue for unbelievers to perpetuate
their own unbelief? Yet, it should be noted that the above point does not deny
God as the first cause. Rather, the argument should be presented in a manner
such that the foundations are re-calibrated from abstract principles to
biblical principles. In this sense, covenantal apologetics yearns to model Gospel
faithfulness without compromise at any point. [13]
Second, Scripture itself
advocates for the use of reductio arguments in our engagement. For
instance, in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church at
Corinth as follows: “For
the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have
divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised
against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ”. Contextually,
Paul’s response was directed towards defending his apostolic ministry, but was
his response merely descriptive? In a way, Paul provided a model towards
responding to assaults on the faith. Oppositions that set themselves against
the knowledge of God “have to be demolished so that the truth of the gospel
might gain entry.” [14] Furthermore, the repeated use of warlike
terms underscores “the depth of the enmity that exists between the children of
God and the children of the devil from the time of the fall”. [15]
As such, the passage appears to support a Reformed understanding of the
antithesis. Does this resonate with the claim of covenantal apologetics? Recall
that in covenantal apologetics, the antithesis is present between Christian and
non-Christian thought, and by demonstrating that opposing thoughts are unable
to stand on their own principles, it actually paves the way for a positive
commendation of the Gospel, or in the case of this passage, takes “every
thought captive to obey Christ”. Thus, this passage lends support to a
covenantal apologetic approach.
Third,
in covenantal apologetic’s presentation of the Bible as the living Word of God,
it takes seriously the Fall of man in its entirety. Rather than arguing
directly from our senses and understanding of the world around us to God, it
provides a transcendental approach that goes beyond our experiences and
acknowledges God as the provider of all truth and revelation. It challenges the
underlying foundations that allow the experiences to be possible in the first
place. It goes into our deeply religious presuppositions and challenges whether
such presuppositions can truly account for our understanding of reality. In
essence, it challenges us to see the root of our problem and gets to the heart
of it all, which can only be remedied by the Gospel. It is an approach that the
Reformed faith has maintained, and surely it is of sheer joy when a dead sinner
is brought to life by the work of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the
Gospel!
Conclusion
Our
apologetic method demands a synthesis of our theology and the tools of
engagement that God has given to us. If our theology does not inform our
apologetic method, then what we are demonstrating, in the final analysis, is
inconsistency with our own system of thought. From the brief examination
provided above as a test case, it appears that covenantal apologetics, in terms
of its methodology and what it seeks to do, is consistent with the theology
that it upholds. Whether one invest their stocks on Reformed theology or not is
a different question, but suffices to say, as Christians, our beliefs and
methodologies ought to be consistent with each other. Otherwise, we risk
running into a conundrum when asked, “Why should I believe in you?”
REFERENCES
[1] For demonstrative purposes, the appendage “Reformed” will be treated
as being aligned to the theology summarized by the Westminster standards.
[2] Canons
of Dort, Third and Fourth Head: Article 3
[3] James Montgomery Boice, Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of
Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009),
74
[4] Cornelius Van Til, “Introduction,” in The Inspiration and
Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1970), 22
[5] K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles &
Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 48
[6] ibid, 49
[7] ibid, 76−77
[8] E. R. Geehan, ed. Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on
the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Nutley: Presbyterian
& Reformed, 1977), 452
[9] The summary of covenantal apologetics above provided principles for
the defense of the faith. In terms of how covenantal apologetics is applied, it
should be clarified that anything can serve as a proximate starting point to
reach one’s ultimate presupposition. For samples of how it works practically,
see the dialogues in Covenantal Apologetics. For an example on how a
theistic argument is re-appropriated, see Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, “Covenantal
Apologetics and Common-Sense Realism: Recalibrating the Argument from
Consciousness as a Test Case,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 57/4 (2014), 773−91
[10] To know more about the impossibility of neutrality, see Greg L. Bahnsen,
Van Til’s Apologetic (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1998),
148−154
[11] For a comparison of apologetic methodologies, see Brian K. Morley, Mapping
Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2015)
[12] There are various constructions of the cosmological argument, such as
the Kalam cosmological argument as advocated by William Lane Craig, and the
argument from contingency by Leibniz, but for the purposes of illustration,
only the argument from prime causality is considered. For a terse coverage of
these arguments from a classical apologetics perspective, see William Lane
Craig, J. P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 465−481
[13] For an example of how the cosmological argument is appropriated
within a Reformed framework, see Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics,
105−122
[14] Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 230
[15] Gary DeMar, ed. Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic
Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007),
36
No comments:
Post a Comment