DEFENDING THE FAITH Apologetics_ Yesterday, Today, and Beyond

GRACE AND TRUTH

CONTENTS

Dr. Seth J. Nelson - Loving Apologetics

Dr. RJ Gore - Apologetics: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond

Dr. Daniel J. Janosik - John of Damascus: His Apologetic Approach to the Muslims

Dr. Steven C. Adamson - The Apologetics of Thomas Chalmers

Dr. David P. Smith - B.B. Warfield and Apologetics

Dr. James T. Turner, Jr. - Easter, Philosophy, and Apologetics

Rev. Brett Blackman - Herman Bavinck on General Revelation in History

News at Erskine Leadership and Faculty News Alumni In Action

CONTRIBUTORS:

Dr. Seth J. Nelson

Dr. RJ Gore

Dr. Daniel J. Janosik

Dr. Steven C. Adamson

Dr. David P. Smith

Dr. James T. Turner, Jr.

Rev. Brett Blackman

EDITORIAL TEAM:

Mr. Heath Milford, Editor

Dr. Mark Ross, Assistant Editor

Mrs. Langley Shealy, Graphic and Design

Photography: Mrs. Langley Shealy

FROM THE DEAN

Loving Apologetics

“Without God’s work, nothing else works; but with God’s work, many things work. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, love persuades. By the power of God, the gospel transforms. And with Jesus at work, arguments convince. God is happy to use each of these methods,” reflects Gregory Koukl in Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. 1 This edition of Grace and Truth magazine centers on the theme of apologetics and, as you’ll see, resonates with Koukl’s reflection as the authors present diverse apologists and apologetical methods which “God is happy to use.”

All humans are inescapably apologetical. Everyone, no matter their religious or irreligious beliefs, seeks to defend, commend, and make understandable what they love. Jesus points out this central human dynamic of life: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:21). Whatever has captured our hearts, we will defend and seek to persuade others of its value. The main difference for Christians is that God by his Spirit has regenerated our hearts and reoriented our central love to love Christ above all other loves. In turn, apologetics then simply becomes, as I like to define it, “conversing with others to defend, commend, and make understandable the gospel of Jesus Christ” (see 1 Peter 3:15–16).

Dr. Steven C. Adamson, Erskine College and Seminary’s new president, contributes to this edition of Grace and Truth with an article presenting the apologetics of Scottish minister, theologian, and key leader in the founding of the Free Church of Scotland, Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847). Having spent two summers in Scotland as a student minister in rural village churches while in seminary, Dr. Adamson became intrigued by the history of the church in Scotland. His interest drove him to focus his doctoral research at the University of Aberdeen on Thomas Chalmers, specifically on the influences, methods, and effects of Chalmers’ engagement with early 19th century objections to Christianity. In his Grace and Truth article, Dr. Adamson presents a snapshot of Chalmers’ apologetics and suggests applications for us in the 21st century.

Adding to Dr. Adamson’s article, Dr. RJ Gore addresses Christian engagement with world religions. Two adjunct professors at Erskine Seminary profile their research into key historical figures from very different contexts: one from the modern church in the West and one from the ancient church in the East. Dr. Daniel J. Janosik presents John of Damascus’ (c. 675–749) engagement with the Islam of his day. Dr. David P. Smith discusses B.B. Warfield (1851–1921) and his apologetical approach. Two Erskine Seminary alumni round out this edition. Dr. James T. Turner, Jr. reflects on “Easter, Philosophy, and Apologetics,” as a Christian philosophy professor. Rev. Brett Blackman examines Herman Bavinck’s (1854–1921) view of general revelation in history.

Enjoy this edition of Grace and Truth as you seek to be further equipped to “always be prepared to give an answer (apologian) to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

Rev. Seth J. Nelson, PhD Dean of Erskine Seminary and Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology and Educational Leadership

1 Gregory Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 36.

Our Vision and Mission

Erskine College Institutional Mission:

Erskine College exists to glorify God as a Christian academic community where students are equipped to flourish as whole persons for lives of service through the pursuit of undergraduate liberal arts and graduate theological education.

Erskine Theological Seminary Mission

Erskine Theological Seminary prepares men and women to fulfill the Great Commission of Jesus Christ through theological higher education that is ecclesial, missional, and confessional.

• Burden (Why we exist): Erskine Theological Seminary, an agency of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, exists because Jesus Christ calls laborers for his harvest who are skilled in the handling of the Word of God.

• Vision (How we lift the burden): Erskine Theological Seminary is a Biblical, Reformed, and Evangelical Seminary community of learning sustained in prayer, supported by a growing constituency, united in faith, and fueled by the power of the Holy Spirit for gospel transformation in every area of life.

• Values (Non-negotiable essentials that guide us): Erskine Theological Seminary is grounded in the person and work of the only Savior of humanity, our Lord Jesus Christ, as he is presented in the inerrant and infallible Holy Scriptures; the summary of which is found in the Westminster Standards; and taught with academic excellence by qualified pastor-scholars in a nurturing and gracious community of learning.

• Philosophy of Ministry (How we do our work): Erskine Theological Seminary promotes the Vision and Mission through biblical and confessional faithfulness, multiple modalities, and academic excellence, set in a loving, pastoral community of service.

Christian Apologetics: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond

RJ Gore, Professor of Systematic Theology

What do we mean by the term, “Apologetics”? In this brief article, I hope to answer that question, introduce apologetics as an academic discipline, briefly survey the history of apologetics, discuss the application of apologetics to our 21st century world, and provide a rationale for extending the traditional focus of apologetics to include engagement with World Religions. Let us begin with the meaning of apologetics.

Definition and Academic Discipline

In I Peter 3:15, we find these words: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect...” You cannot see it in our English Bible, but if you were looking at the Greek New Testament you would see that the word translated “defense” is the Greek word, apologia. It is also the word from which the English language gets “apology” and “apologetics.” Quite simply, apologetics is the effort to demonstrate the truth of the Christian faith, using Scripture, reason, evidence, and other tools appropriate to the discussion, to those who are not yet followers of Christ.

In effect, our text says all Christians are called to be apologists, and we should be ready to explain our commitment to Christ and the reasons we have identified ourselves as Christ followers. Notice what Peter says we must do: First, we are to honor Christ, or as some translations put it, to sanctify or to revere Christ as Lord. This means we must have a clear understanding that Jesus is the God-Man, the Second Person of the Trinity who took on human flesh to become the Mediator between God and man. Those who are not mature in the faith will find apologetics to be a difficult endeavor, so knowledge of Christ as Lord is paramount to growth in grace. Unlike the founders of other religions, such as Mohammed, Buddha, or Confucius, Christ is God in the flesh, the Almighty God who entered our world by being born of the Virgin Mary.

Second, (and I am not following the order of the text) Peter wants us to provide answers “with gentleness and respect.” We must not become puffed up with our knowledge, but instead need to remain humble in our demeanor and in our dialog with non-Christians. We who are Christ followers are not following him because we are intellectually superior to others, but because God has been merciful to enlighten our eyes and open our hearts to hear and believe the Good News! The work of the apologist is not an exercise in self-aggrandizement but a gentle word of witness to those who need God’s mercy and grace. Apologetics, then, is less about winning arguments and more about winning souls and honoring Christ.

Third, Peter tells us we must always be ready to give an “apology” or a reason for the hope that is in us. Now, this means a lot of things, but at the very least it means we must spend time with our Bibles, reading and studying so we can share the Good News with those who do not know Christ. Dare I say it, this is a

Christian Apologetics: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond (cont.)

good argument for the importance of apologetics in theological studies! Indeed, as a seminary student I took course work in apologetics, and as a seminary professor I have taught apologetics my entire career. And apologetics leads us to study related disciplines, such as history, philosophy, and world religions. One author writes, the work of the theologian, philosopher, or evangelist cannot be carried out without to some degree defending the truth of Christianity—in apologetics...To be sure, there are shades of difference between apologetics, theology, philosophy, and evangelism—differences in the primary audience, or type of questions addressed, or immediate aim. But all of these tasks come under the common umbrella of applying God’s Word to the hearts of men. This is what we were made for: to receive God’s Word and apply it to our lives.1

As you can see, the author makes a case for including apologetics among other serious theological pursuits. The great Princeton theologian, Benjamin B. Warfield, explained the “theological encyclopedia,” a name for the seminary curriculum at old (pre-1929) Princeton Theological Seminary. Specifically, Warfield listed: “the Exegetical, the Historical, the Systematic, and the Practical, with only the correction of prefixing to them a fifth department of Apologetical Theology.”2 This inclusion of apologetics, either as a required course or as a recommended elective, has been followed by many Presbyterian and Reformed seminaries.

Brief Historical Survey

As a Christian endeavor, apologetics has been around since the early church. Early threats to the church came from Rome, Judaism, and early heresies such as Gnosticism.3 Among the early apologists are well known figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and of course, Augustine of Hippo, to name a few.

In the Middle Ages, there was much apologetic activity, but two names are particularly significant. Anselm (1033-1109), a Benedictine monk and later Archbishop of Canterbury, explored “the relationship between faith and reason,”4 and his most famous work, Cur Deus Homo, asked the question “Why God Became Man?” Another great figure was Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who broke new ground in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae, using philosophical principles from Aristotle and viewing both human reason and faith as “reliable sources of divine truth.”5

Moving into the early modern period, among others, we find Blaise Pascal and his Pensees (“Thoughts”) with his famous “Wager” (Do you dare risk it all that Christianity is not true?), William Paley’s Natural Theology and his argument from Design (i.e., a watch requires a watchmaker), and Joseph Butler’s The Analogy of Religion, arguing that nature and its intricacies undermined the arguments of the Deists, “showing that there are no good grounds to reject the Christian revelation.”6

In the modern era we have been blessed with an abundance of apologists and a wide spectrum of methodologies. There is space here for only a few highlights. In old Princeton, we had Benjamin B. Warfield

Christian Apologetics: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond (cont.)

who meticulously defended the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, and his younger colleague, the brilliant Apologist and Churchman, J. Gresham Machen who penned the monumental Christianity and Liberalism. Later we had E.J. Carnell with his “verification” approach, and the Lutherans provided John Warwick Montgomery, who argued for the truth of Christianity based on the evidence of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. In the UK we had the 20th century’s most famous apologist, C. S. Lewis, who gave us Mere Christianity (and Narnia!) and made famous the “Lord, liar, or lunatic” argument. In the Presbyterian and Reformed community, there were even more options! The classical apologist, R.C. Sproul, used rational arguments for the existence of God; Gordon Clark used a presuppositional approach that lifted high the Holy Scriptures (and Logic!); and, of course, there was presuppositional apologist Cornelius Van Til who embraced the Transcendental Argument for God as the definitive argument for Christianity.7

Doing Apologetics Now

In the past, books dealing with apologetics were heavy on philosophy, science, and history. Much of the apologetic effort was laced with rational arguments and the marshalling of evidence. Today, in our PostEnlightenment (or Postmodern) and Post-Christian environment we find ourselves in an Acts 17 world. James Emery White, Pastor of Mecklenberg Community Church in Charlotte, N.C., compares Acts 2, where all those who heard Peter’s sermon had some knowledge and understanding of the Bible, with American culture, circa 1960. In Acts 17, Paul addresses listeners on Mars Hill who had no familiarity with the Bible and its teachings. White compares this to biblically illiterate contemporary American culture.8 Today, as on Mars Hill, there is need for dialog and respectful reminders that there is a transcendent, if largely unknown, God.

On a related matter, earlier, in 2014, White documented a movement in American culture that has continued, indeed, has increased in the years following. Using studies current at that time, White described the surprising movement among Americans that showed the percentage of Americans who claimed no religious affiliation had moved from 5% in the 1940s to 19% in 2012. White wrote, “The nones now make up the nation’s fastest growing and second largest religious category, eclipsed only by Catholics, outnumbering even Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination.”9 And things have not improved. In a Pew Research Center report from 2021 we read “Currently, about three-in-ten U.S. adults (29%) are religious ‘nones’ – people who describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or ‘nothing in particular’ when asked about their religious identity.”10

For those who have kept their eyes open and minds alert, it has become increasingly obvious that this religious “falling away” is not limited to churches and matters of faith alone. Indeed, all aspects of contemporary culture have been affected, some even transformed by this religious declination. In her book, Strange Rites, author Tara Burton describes the religiously unaffiliated. They are the fastest-growing religious demographic in America—the spiritual but not religious, the religious mix and matches, the theologically bi-and tri-curious who attend Shabbat services but also do yoga, who cleanse with sage but also sing “Silent Night” at Christmastime. Throughout America, already

Christian Apologetics: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond (cont.)

the religiously unaffiliated make up about a quarter of the population—and almost 40 percent of young Millennials.11

She further explains how bizarre today’s world has become: “It’s the story not just of the religious ‘Nones,’ but of even a broader category: those who aren’t rejecting religion, but rather remixing it. It’s the story of how more and more Americans—and particularly how more and more millennials—envision themselves as creators of their own bespoke religions, mixing and matching spiritual and aesthetic and experiential and philosophical traditions.”12

I remember a time when conversations turned on a phrase like, “What do you think about that?” I don’t hear that much anymore. Instead, I often hear the question, “How do you feel about that?” William Edgar writes that traditional apologetics sought to “amass evidence until rational people yield and admit the Christian faith is true. Unfortunately, reasonable people are becoming rare.”13 We have moved from a culture where truth is paramount and rational discourse is the way we communicate to a culture largely guided by intuition and feelings. We have to learn new skills. Ken Myers of the Mars Hill Audio Journal writes:

Traditional apologetics is concerned with making arguments to defend Christian truth claims, and has often addressed challenges to Christian belief coming from philosophical and other more intellectual sources. The term “cultural apologetics” has been used to refer to systematic efforts to advance the plausibility of Christian claims in light of the messages communicated through dominant cultural institutions, including films, popular music, art, and the mass media.14

So, given the changing world, how do we do apologetics in 2022 and beyond? Edgar points the way: “Now is the time for persuasion.” And so a more recent approach to apologetics, what Ken Myers and others are now calling “Cultural Apologetics,” has arisen. The literature is growing rapidly, but I will simply highlight two books of significance. In 2019, Paul Gould published Cultural Apologetics, writing: “I define cultural apologetics as the work of establishing the Christian voice, conscience, and imagination within a culture so that Christianity is seen as true and satisfying.”15 Throughout the book Gould focuses on bringing heart and mind together, and, with a hat-tip to C.S. Lewis writes, “Beauty is a divine megaphone to rouse a disenchanted world.”16 Gould’s apologetic task is summarized in his book’s full title, Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian Voice, Conscience, and Imagination in a Disenchanted World.

A more recent work on apologetics is The Faithful Apologist by Scott Oliphint. His sub-title clarifies the purpose of his book: Rethinking the Role of Persuasion in Apologetics. Oliphint explains that “we can define persuasion simply as our attempts to discern and initiate a connection between two or more people in order to defend and commend the gospel to them.”17 He further notes that many would think of apologetics and persuasion “as opposites.”

Persuasion seeks and finds connections between two or more disparate viewpoints. Apologetics, on the other hand, tends to focus on confrontation as it seeks to meet objections against Christianity.

Christian Apologetics: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond (cont.)

We hope to make the case that these two are at their biblical and theological best when they merge together...The two topics, then, far from being mutually exclusive, sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron.18

It is encouraging that in many recent works in apologetics the goal of respectful and effective communication of the gospel is clearly a significant priority.

A Final Adjustment

There is yet one more consideration. After teaching our Erskine Seminary course, ST780 Apologetics, for about fifteen years, I proposed changing the title to “Apologetics and World Religions.” There were two factors motivating me to do this. First, my own personal experience as an Army chaplain was crucial. For twenty-nine years I had served in the most wildly diverse organization imaginable, the United States Army. Wiccans? Yep. Buddhists? Sure. Hindus? A few. Pagans? Of course. Muslims? A good amount. The number of soldiers from various sects, cults, and other “faith communities” that I encountered from 1986 until 2015 was extensive and far more than most civilian pastors would ever experience. As an Army chaplain, “the other” was not on the “other side of the world” but often on the “other side of the office”! I learned by experience the value of researching the beliefs and practices of the various sects, cults, and world religions embraced by my fellow soldiers.

But there was a second factor at work. Prior to 1965, US Immigration laws favored immigrants from northern and western Europe. In other words, by far, most immigrants came from countries with a JudeoChristian background, similar to the dominant religious culture in the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 changed that.

In 1960, Pew notes, 84 percent of U.S. immigrants were born in Europe or Canada; 6 percent were from Mexico, 3.8 percent were from South and East Asia, 3.5 percent were from Latin America and 2.7 percent were from other parts of the world. In 2017, European and Canadian immigrants totaled 13.2 percent, while Mexicans totaled 25.3 percent, other Latin Americans totaled 25.1 percent, Asians totaled 27.4 percent and other populations totaled 9 percent.19

There was a time when you might find Muslims or Buddhists in larger cities. But you would be hard-pressed to find representatives of non-Christian faith groups in small towns or rural communities. Not anymore! Over the years, “the other” is now part of our small communities, and civilian pastors are dealing with situations that, historically, were not part of their experience. In a sense, everyone in ministry is now a missionary! And so our apologetics course adapted to the new reality and became “Apologetics and World Religions.”

Conclusion

Apologetics is alive—and not just in seminary classrooms. As a function of gospel ministry, it has undergone significant change throughout the ages and across the globe. What has not changed is the mandate we find in I Peter 3:15! It is my hope that this short article will help you, dear reader, in “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”

Christian Apologetics: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond (cont.)

R. J. Gore (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is Dean Emeritus and Professor of Systematic Theology at Erskine Seminary. He served for twenty-nine years as an Army Chaplain (Colonel), has pastored a small church, and has held numerous leadership roles in his presbytery and denomination. He is the author of Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle.

1Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1998), 44.

2Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” Studies in Theology, vol. 9, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (1932; reprint: Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 63.

3Benjamin K. Forrest, Joshua D. Chatraw, Alister McGrath, eds. The History of Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 27ff. Hereafter abbreviated HA.

4 Cardinal Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics (reprint; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 99.

5HA, 236.

6HA, 360.

7Here is John Frame’s explanation of Van Til’s Transcendental Argument for God: https://frame-poythress.org/transcendental-arguments/.

8James Emery White, Meet Generation Z (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 110-112.

9James Emery White, The Rise of the Nones (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 17.

10Pew Research Center, accessed May 6, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiouslyunaffiliated/.

11Tara Burton, Strange Rites (New York: Public Affairs, 2020), 2.

12Ibid., 9,10.

13William Edgar in K. Scott Oliphint, The Faithful Apologist (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2022), inside front cover endorsement.

14Quoted in Paul Gould, Cultural Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), 20.

15Gould, Cultural Apologetics, 21, emphasis in original.

16Ibid., 104.

17Oliphint, The Faithful Apologist, x-xi.

18Ibid., xi.

19History Channel, accessed May 9, 2022, https://www.history.com/news/immigration-act-1965-changes.

John of Damascus: His Apologetic Approach to the Muslims

Daniel J. Janosik, Adjunct Professor of Apologetics

Who Was John and Why Was He Important?

Mansur ibn Sarjun (675-749), later known by his Christian name as John of Damascus, or John Damascene, was also known as a “presbyter and monk,” and one of the greatest writers of theology, poetry, and hymns in the Eastern Orthodox Church. His work in theology, De Fide Orthodoxa, for example, was considered a type of summa theologiae, and has become a standard for the Eastern Orthodox Church. The clear logic and force of John’s arguments became widely known throughout the eastern world and even today are considered a complete defense based on Scripture, tradition, and reason.

In defending the orthodox position, John needed to summarize the doctrine of the Christian church up through the 8th century and then develop an appropriate apologetic that would defend truth as well as refute error. One of the best examples of his three-pronged approach is found in his two works against Islam, the Heresy of the Ishmaelites and the Disputation Between a Christian and a Saracen. These treatises were written in order to warn Christians of the false beliefs of the new religion as well as to demonstrate the rational basis of Christianity. Then, by providing a model for refuting the challenges of Islam, these three purposes formed the basis of John’s apologetic approach, which was to understand both sides, defend Christianity, and refute error.

A Christian in the Court of the Caliph

John’s father and grandfather were the λογοθέτης, or chief tax collectors in Damascus. When the Arabs conquered the city in 635 AD, it was John’s grandfather, also named Mansur ibn Sarjun, who apparently surrendered the city in order to save the citizens. For this act, he was able to retain his important position and then later pass it down to his son, who in turn passed it down to John during the end of the reign of Abd al-Malik (685 to 705). Damascus had become the center of the Umayyad Empire during the reign of the first historical caliph, Muawiyah (661-680), and remained the political hub until the Abbasids gained power in 750. The important thing to note is that John served in the court of the most powerful caliph of the Umayyad Empire when it seems that Abd al-Malik declared to the world that his religion was anti-trinitarian and that God could not have a son. This proclamation was inscribed in the newly constructed Dome of the Rock, which was built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in 691/692. Before this time, the religion of the Arab conquerors was apparently an intermediate monotheism that was more of an aberration of the dominant trinitarian Christianity in the area rather than the more fully formed Islam that was represented in the later Abbasid period.

John probably resigned his position during the time of Umar II (717-720), who was particularly intolerant of having Christians in his administration, and entered the monastic life around the year

John of Damascus: His Apologetic Approach to the Muslims (cont.)

720. In time, John became a priest and settled into the Monastery of St. Sabas near Jerusalem where he probably did most of his writing. He is also described as a priest of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and a friend of John V, the patriarch of Jerusalem (706-735). John of Damascus was of the Melkite tradition, and therefore was a supporter of the Orthodoxy of the Byzantine king, which at this time was in less favor than either the Nestorian church or the Monophysite followers, who had been previously suppressed under the Byzantine rule. In time, this reversal in the ecclesiastical favor would play a significant role in the downfall of the Christian church as a whole in the Middle East.

John’s experience in both the secular and the sacred world was of great benefit to his work and to his witness of the events and religious movements taking place during the time of Abd al-Malik and the transformative rule of the Umayyad Empire. There are relatively few eyewitness accounts of the development of Islam during this time period, which makes John’s insights all the more important. Not only did John have access to the inner court of the Caliph, but his writings on Islam had a long and profound influence on other Christian writers who dealt with or wrote about Islam. His information on Islam enabled Christians better to understand the heretical views of this new religion as well as develop their own defense of their Christian beliefs.

What Can We Know about Islam through John’s writings?

Most of John’s extant 1,500 pages of Greek works were probably written from the 720s after he became a priest and resided at the monastery. His two short treatises on Islam, the Heresy of the Ishmaelites and the Disputation Between a Christian and a Saracen make up only around 12-15 pages, and were probably written in the early 740s. At this time, he is aware of some of the stories of the founder of the religion of the Ishmaelites, and refers to him as “Mamed,” (Greek lacks the aspirated “h” sound). He is also aware of some of the main doctrines of the religion, especially in regard to Christ, and he is aware of some of the “writings” that seem to be pre-Qur’anic since they are worded differently and are referred to as separate “writings” rather than a single book. However, most of the material that John references seems to come mainly from four of the current suras found in the Qur’an, and even then they tend to be fragments that seem to indicate ignorance about other parts of the suras. This may demonstrate that John’s knowledge of the Qur’an was very limited or that the formation of the Qur’an was still in process. The suras that he is somewhat familiar with are from the later suras known as the Medinan ones. By this time they even have their present titles: Sura 2: “The Heifer” (al-Baqarah); Sura 4: “The Woman” (al-Nisa) [the present name is in the plural form, “The Women”]; and Sura 5: “The Table” (Al Ma’idah). The fourth sura that he names he calls the “Camel of God,” but there is no sura in the present Qu’ran by that name. Some think that since John took up over 20% of his treatise to focus in detail on the story of the camel, which is portrayed as swallowing up rivers of water and milk, that he may have been calling attention to the whimsical nature of the writings in general. Whatever the case, there are only scattered references alluding to the camel and its exploits in the present Qur’an (Suras 7, 11, 17, 26, 54, and 91). Some scholars believe that the story as a whole was removed due to the sarcastic attention raised by John. On the other hand, this may also indicate that the Qur’an was not yet canonized and still fluid in the mid-8th century, over 100 years after Muhammad’s death.

John of Damascus: His Apologetic Approach to the Muslims (cont.)

What Can We Learn About Islam From the Text of John’s Treatises?

In the first section of the Heresy of the Ishmaelites, John describes the new religion as a “coercive religion” that is also the “forerunner of the Anti-Christ.”1 The reason he labels the beliefs of the Ishmaelites as a “heresy” rather than a separate religion is that recent research indicates that the Arabs involved during his lifetime were probably “heretical Christians” who believed in God, but did not conceive God as a Trinity, nor did they believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. For them, God was too holy to have a son and they were too monotheistic to accept that God could be triune.

In regard to the denial of the Trinity, John writes that “He [Muhammad] says there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten.” This is probably referring to Sura 112:1,3 in the present Qur’an which says, “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only… He begetteth not, Nor is He begotten.”2 In regard to the denial of the deity of Christ, John writes, “When Christ ascended into heaven, God questioned him, saying: ‘O Jesus, did you say that “I am the Son of God and God”?’ And Jesus answered, saying: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. you know that I did not say (that)…” This indicates that John was familiar with Sura 5:116, which says, “And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ‘Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say).” Again, this demonstrates that John knew parts of what has become the Qur’an, but his knowledge is only fragmentary. Perhaps this suggests that the Qur’an was still in the process of being constructed.

In his treatise on the Heresy of the Ishmaelites, John referred to the Ishmaelite beliefs as a heresy of Christianity because they denied the two major doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ, much like the Arians in the time of the Nicaean creed. He also called Muhammad a “false prophet”, and said that Muhammad learned his false views regarding Christ from an Arian priest, therefore bringing into the new religion an anti-trinitarian bias. Then, in his dialog between a Christian and a Saracen (another name used for the Ishmaelites), he also called the Saracens “mutilators” because they tore apart the Trinity by believing that God’s Spirit and His Word were created afterward. The Disputation Between a Christian and a Saracen was basically a training manual to teach Christians how they could respond to the main questions raised by the Saracens. The Disputation is also a valuable source of information concerning the earliest stage of Muslim-Christian dialogue and the development of the theology of the new religious community that was challenging orthodox Christianity.

In the Disputation , John challenges the Saracens in regard to their refusal to accept Jesus as God with a clever argument that was used by Christian apologists for centuries following. The Saracens called Christians “Associators” for ascribing a partner or son to God. However, John calls the Saracens “Mutilators” for tearing apart the Trinity, for he reasons that if God’s Word and Spirit are taken away from Him, then He is less than God. John’s logic is based on Sura 4:171 in the Qur’an which indicates that Jesus is God’s Word and Spirit. Since God’s Word and Spirit must have always existed, then Jesus must also be eternal if he is God’s Word and Spirit. Otherwise, if Jesus is only a created

John of Damascus: His Apologetic Approach to the Muslims (cont.)

being, then God’s Word and Spirit must also be created and not eternal. Thus, the Saracens would be “Mutilators” for tearing God’s Word and Spirit from Him. The verse also goes on to accuse the Christians of worshipping three gods rather than the one God that the Saracens worship. However, this misinterpretation existed then, as well as now, because Muslims cannot understand how God can be one God existing as three persons. This confusion continues to keep many Muslims today from accepting the Christ of Christianity. This is why we need to understand how to better explain the concept of the Trinity as well as model the apologetic method that John of Damascus developed so many years ago.

Summary of John’s Apologetic Method

John first states what the Saracens believe and then demonstrates that he has an accurate knowledge of the Arabic scriptures of that time. He then explains how the Christian scriptures and doctrine counter the Saracen beliefs and also provide a better rationale for belief in God. In the dialogue, the Christian is able to guide the Saracen through layers of an argument until it becomes apparent that the Saracen’s explanations are not adequate and the Christian explanation is the better one. We can follow this same example today. We first need to Understand what we believe as Christians, and we need to have a good knowledge of what Muslims believe so that we will be able to compare and contrast our beliefs. Then, we need to be able to Defend what we believe when Muslims question our beliefs (See 1 Peter 3:15). Finally, we need to be able to Refute the errors that Muslims present, such as their belief that Christians worship three Gods rather than One God in three persons. Understand, Defend, Refute: These are three keys of a successful apologetic method.

Daniel J. Janosik (PhD, London School of Theology) is Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Erskine Seminary. He is the author of John of Damascus: First Apologist to the Muslims and A Christian’s Guide to Islam.

1All references are from the translation of the Heresy of the Ishmaelites by Daniel Janosik in John of Damascus, pages 260-268, and the Disputation Between a Christian and a Saracen, pages 269-276. (Wipf & Stock, 2016).

2 All references are from the translation of The Noble Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

The Apologetics of Thomas Chalmers

Steven C. Adamson, President, Erskine College and Seminary

On the morning of May 31, 1847, Dr. Thomas Chalmers, “the greatest of living Scotchmen”1 was found to have passed peacefully in his sleep. The public outpouring at his funeral was something seldom seen in Edinburgh, as the procession of mourners stretched for mile after mile, and as one chronicler said, it was “amid the tears of a nation, and with more than kingly honours” that this Scottish divine was laid to rest.2

This humble minister of the Word of God, who disliked publicity, praise, and popularity,3 left behind a wealth of written works that cover a diverse range of subjects from pauperism, education, church government, evangelism, and missions, to philosophy, theology, and apologetics. At times, he even waded into the arenas of public policy, economics, and natural science. He has been referred to as the “mainspring of the whole evangelical movement in the Scottish church”4 and “the greatest spiritual force Scotland saw in the nineteenth century.”5 His contributions to Scottish Protestantism cannot be overstated, and it is reasonable to rank him second only to John Knox (1514-1572) in religious importance.

For all his dedication to the ministry and years of theological effort, Dr. Chalmers is primarily remembered for two things: being the man at the center of the 1843 Disruption culminating in the establishment of the Scottish Free Church, and his pastoral work on missions and social issues like pauperism and education. However, Chalmers was more than a church organizer and champion for the needs of the poor. He was an active apologist of formidable intellect with an evangelical zeal that motivated him to spread the Gospel.6

Nonetheless, it is reasonable to say that Chalmers is far from being the best-known British apologist of the early nineteenth century; that position belongs to William Paley (1743-1805), the prince of British Natural Theologians.7 Today, it is Paley, not Chalmers, who comes to mind when reflecting on the giants of British Natural Theology.

While Paley’s name is the one remembered, Chalmers, during his lifetime, did not go without apologetic recognition. He first burst onto the scene in 1813 with the publication of an article entitled “Christianity” in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia . In 1817, Chalmers, then the minister at Tron Church in Glasgow, published the work Astronomical Discourses . 8 In this work, he lays out the premise that the vastness of the universe has no satisfactory explanation outside the creative powers of the Almighty. His publication of Astronomical Discourses was tremendously successful, going through nine editions, resulting in 20,000 copies, in less than a year.9 In May 1817, Chalmers presented these sermons in London amid considerable enthusiasm, and as British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce wrote in his diary, “all the world is wild about Chalmers.”10

Throughout the next thirty years Chalmers would author an apologetic essay for the Bridgewater Treatises , 11 republish his encyclopaedia article as The Evidence and Authority of the Christian Revelation

The Apologetics of Thomas Chalmers (cont.)

in 1814,12 refine the work again in 1836 as On The Miraculous and Internal Evidences of the Christian Revelation , 13 produce a two-volume work On Natural Theology , 14 and assemble his views on apologetics and systematic theology in a work entitled Institutes of Theology in 1849, published posthumously.15

His works profoundly influenced the students who sat under him at St. Andrews and Edinburgh Universities, and were often praised by his contemporaries for being of the highest caliber.16 Even with this praise, Chalmers’ status as a first-rate apologist was short-lived. In little more than ten years after his death, his writings were rarely read.17 Today, few of his works are in publication, with little written of his apologetic endeavors, and even fewer references to the arguments or recognition of their similarity to modern apologists. These days, it is safe to say that Chalmers’ apologetic prowess is essentially forgotten, at least outside Scotland.18

The early years of the nineteenth century posed significant challenges for theologians, marking the transition from The Age of Enlightenment to the Scientific and Industrial Revolution.19 Up to this time, many of the apologetic proofs for the existence of God formulated by Aquinas20 and Anselm 21 held sway. However, with the advent of Empirical Philosophy during The Enlightenment, many came to believe it was impossible to know anything meaningful about God. Furthermore, early nineteenth-century scientific discoveries began to lend credence to hypotheses that the world and life came into being via exclusively natural mechanisms.

Much of Chalmers’ works fall within the traditional category of British Natural Theology. It is important to remember that Chalmers does not consider Natural Theology capable of answering all questions an inquirer might ask. He believes that the principal usefulness of Natural Theology is in the direction it points, and the impelling force with which it sends the inquirer onward in their search.

It is a call upon man’s attention – not perhaps to inform but to awaken him. He obeys this call who places himself on the outlook for any traces or manifestations of God. The missionary who lands upon his shore will find him the first to listen to his message – at least the first to be impressed by its aspect of honesty and sacredness . . . It is the existence of this impression which secures an introduction for us.22

Thus, the apologetics of Natural Theology should be viewed as being limited in its ability to present the problem of the human condition. Natural Theology can in no way be thought of as offering an adequate solution to the problem of sin and lead one to salvation. Of this, he writes:

How can a breach between God and a guilty world be repaired, or how can a readjustment be effected between a righteous lawgiver and the transgressors of His law? . . . It is a question which nature can originate, but which nature cannot solve . . . Revelation is called for, not merely as a supplement to the light and informations of nature; but far more urgently called for as a solvent for nature’s perplexities and fears. Natural Theology possesses the materials out of which the enigma is framed; but possesses not the light by which to unriddle it.23

The Apologetics of Thomas Chalmers (cont.)

By this, it can be seen that Chalmers confronts two schools of thought with regard to Natural Theology – one school emphasizing its insufficiency, the other its importance. The two positions are not contradictory; he considers them perfectly reconcilable. He champions the cause of Natural Theology, recognizing its important bearing on the promotion of evangelical Christianity, while also recognizing its limitations. The concluding words of Natural Theology indicate the soteriological direction in which his Natural Theology points.

It is a science not so much of dicta as of desiderata . . . For the problem which Natural Theology cannot resolve, the precise difficulty which it is wholly unable to meet or to overcome, is the restoration of sinners to acceptance and favour with a God of justice . . . It makes known to us our sin, but it cannot make known to us salvation.24

Chalmers, who sides with the Evangelicals of Scotland in the early nineteenth century, repudiates the synthesis that in those days existed between his preferred form of philosophy and the moribund theology of eighteenth-century Moderatism.25 He shows concern that Natural Theology, as proffered by the Moderate arm of the Scottish church, has taken the inquisitive nature of the study and supplanted God’s own revelation. Chalmers writes:

It is quite overrated by those who would represent it as the foundation of the edifice. It is not that, but rather the taper by which we must grope our way to the edifice . . . Christianity rests on its own proper evidence, and if, instead of this, she be made to rest on an antecedent natural religion, she becomes weak throughout.26

He is confident that the deeper one probes the length and breadth of the evidences found within Natural Theology, the more one becomes convinced that the solution to the human disease can only be found in Scripture. His education, background, and life experiences are clearly seen in his approach to Natural Theology. His apologetic writings, as is his preference, include healthy doses of scientific investigation, as prescribed by Common Sense Philosophy. Yet, he places boundaries on overzealous Natural Theology that tends, as he sees it, toward Moderatism. Furthermore, his works have a strong element of an evangelical objective. The apologetics of Natural Theology, for Chalmers, are not just to demonstrate the arguments in support of Christianity, but to begin the process of winning souls. He writes, “How can the breach between God and a guilty world be repaired . . . It is a question that nature can originate, but which nature cannot solve.”27

This limitation or boundary, placed upon Natural Theology, permeates his works and his pastoral writing gives them a decidedly evangelical feel. McCosh is of the opinion that Chalmers was a mere reconciler “between the philosophy and the religion of Scotland,”28 in the vein of traditional Moderatism. Rice successfully argues that Chalmers’ evangelical orientation was at odds with this synthesis and does not allow for a purely anthropocentric exercise in academic apologetics. “The fact of the matter is that Chalmers did feel an antagonism here, precisely at the point where theologians of Moderate persuasion could successfully draw theological conclusions from Common Sense Philosophy which were at variance with the orthodox position Chalmers so rigorously defended.”29

The Apologetics of Thomas Chalmers (cont.)

Rice indicates that Chalmers was committed to orthodox Christianity and desired to demonstrate that view in his more evangelical writings.30 While Chalmers, to some extent, did synthesize science with religion and although categorized as a natural theologian, he retained a unique evangelical perspective, always aware of the limits of apologetic proofs from Natural Theology.

This awareness of the limits of Natural Theology blended with his evangelical zeal is what sets Chalmers’ writings apart, according to Blaikie, from his contemporaries:

Here, then, was one source of Chalmers’ unprecedented influence on his age – he understood its cravings; he supplied them on the true basis; and he did this in a way of his own, untrammelled alike by the forms and the phraseology of a preceding epoch. He let in the daylight and fresh air on our evangelical enclosures.31

He is deeply convicted of the centrality of Christ’s atonement in his own conversion experience and carries this conviction over into his more anthropologically structured treatment of systematic theology. This conviction is seen in the following from Blaikie:

Most Calvinist treatises on systematic theology start from the divine point of view, setting forth the nature of God; and, on the basis of His sovereignty, explaining his relation to man . . . Chalmers preferred to start with the actual condition of man, the diseased and disorganised state into which he had fallen, and to rise from that to the provision which God had made of his recovery through Jesus Christ . . . But, from the eminently practical character of his mind, it was not his habit to put the higher doctrines of Calvinism in the forefront of his preaching, or even of his theology.32

For some, Chalmers’ evangelical orientation diminishes the strength of his apologetic prowess. The North American and New York reviews dislike his sermonic wordiness.33 Hugh Watt disparages Chalmers’ style as billowy and unacceptable for academic writing.34

Yet, Chalmers writings contain numerous apologetic ideas, with similarities to the works of modern researchers.35 His desire to preach the gospel is, without question, recognizable, and the reader of his works should keep this in mind. Appreciating and expecting the prevalence of Chalmers’ evangelical sensitivity will enable readers to empathize and be patient with Chalmers’ periodic drifts into doxology and sermon-like editorials. Having this perspective will, we believe, facilitate successful reading and appreciation of Chalmers’ works.

Dr. Steven C. Adamson (PhD., Aberdeen) is President of Erskine College and Seminary. He previously served as Provost and Executive Vice President at Arizona Christian University in Phoenix, AZ and Provost of The Bible Seminary in Katy, TX. This article has been excerpted and adapted from Dr. Adamson’s book, The Apologetics of Thomas Chalmers (Lakeland, FL: Whitefield Media, 2016)

The Apologetics of Thomas Chalmers (cont.)

1 Thomas M’Crie, The Story of the Scottish Church: From the Reformation to the Disruption (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2007), 527.

2 William Hanna, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., vol. 9 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1852), 591-593.

3 Margaret Oliphant, Thomas Chalmers Preacher, Philosopher, and Statesman (Boston: Houghton, Mufflin, and Company, 1893), 76-78.

4 M’Crie, 526.

5 Iain H. Murray, A Scottish Christian Heritage (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2006), 75.

6 Ibid., 77.

7 William Paley, D.D., Natural Theology or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, First Edition, 1802 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), ix; William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science & Technology (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1999), 71.

8 Thomas Chalmers, A Series of Discourses on the Christian Revelation, Viewed in Connection with the Modern Astronomy, First Edition, 1817 (New York: American Tract Society, 1850).

9 William Hanna, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., vol. 7 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1852), 97-99.

10 Ibid., 111.

11 Thomas Chalmers, On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Adaptation of External Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Constitution of Man, First Bridgewater Treatise, First Edition, 1833 (London: H.G. Bohn, 1853).

12 Thomas Chalmers, The Evidence and Authority of the Christian Revelation, First Edition, 1814 (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1817).

13 Hanna, vol. 7, 98; William Hanna, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., vol. 6 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1850), 372; Thomas Chalmers, On the Miraculous and Internal Evidences of the Christian Revelation, vol. 6 (Glasgow: W. Collins, 1836).

14 Thomas Chalmers, On Natural Theology, vol. 6 (Glasgow: W. Collins, 1835); Thomas Chalmers, On Natural Theology, vol. 7 (New York: R. Carter, 1835).

15 Thomas Chalmers, Posthumous Works of the Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., edited by the Rev. William Hanna. vol. VII, Institutes of Theology. vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable, 1849); Thomas Chalmers, Posthumous Works of the Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., edited by the Rev. William Hanna. vol. VIII, Institutes of Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable, 1849).

16 Murray, 76-79; William Hanna, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., vol. 6 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1850), 371-372.

17 Murray, 77.

18 This can be seen by making an inspection of references in the apologetic and theological works of noted modern day apologists, such as Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Nicolas Wolterstorff, William Alston, William Lane Craig, James Sennett, and Donald Groothuis, as examples, and noting that Paley’s, not Chalmers’, name appears prominently. See Sennett, James F. and Douglas Groothuis, eds. In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005).

19 Peter Addinall, Philosophy and Biblical Interpretation: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

20 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Edition, 1265-1274 (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1963).

21 Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy (Jefferson, Md.: Trinity Foundation, 2000), 205-206.

22 Thomas Chalmers, On Natural Theology, vol. 7 (New York: R. Carter, 1835), 385-386.

23 Thomas Chalmers, Posthumous Works of the Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., edited by the Rev. William Hanna, vol. VIII, Institutes of Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable, 1849), 133-134.

24 Thomas Chalmers, On Natural Theology, vol. 7 (New York: R. Carter, 1835), 419.

25 D. F. Rice, “Natural Theology and the Scottish Philosophy in the Thought of Thomas Chalmers,” Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 24, no.1: 23-46.

26 Thomas Chalmers, On Natural Theology, vol. 7 (New York: R. Carter, 1835), 398-399.

27 Thomas Chalmers, Posthumous Works of the Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., edited by the Rev. William Hanna, vol. VIII, Institutes of Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable, 1849), 122.

28 James McCosh, The Scottish Philosophy: Biographical, Expository, Critical from Hutcheson to Hamilton (New York: R. Carter, 1875), 393.

29 Rice, 23.

30 Ibid., 23-46.

31 William G. Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland, from the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888), 287.

32 Ibid., 93-94.

33 “Chalmers’ Natural Theology” in The North American Review, 1842, 356, and “Chalmers’ Natural Theology” in The New York Review, 1837, 137.

34 Hugh Watt, Thomas Chalmers and the Disruption, Incorporating the Chalmers Lectures 1940-1944 (Edinburgh: Nelson, 1943), 17-18.

35 Steven C. Adamson, The Apologetics of Thomas Chalmers (Lakeland, FL: Whitefield Media, 2016).

B.B. Warfield and Apologetics

David P. Smith, Adjunct Professor of Historical Theology

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) is arguably America’s greatest biblical and theological scholar, ranking as one of the most significant in the history of the church. From 1876-1921, Warfield taught, wrote, and preached, explaining the Scriptures, the Christian faith and life, and exposed what he believed were faulty views of them, most notably theological liberalism. His literary output places him in the company of the church’s most prodigious writers, such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin, and his relentless defense of the biblical gospel earned him the nickname “The Lion of Princeton.”

Warfield was, and still is through his writings, one of the most faithful apologists for Christianity. Yet, sadly, to the detriment of the church, Warfield’s stoutest arguments against theological liberalism, and other distortions or denials of the Christian faith have been misunderstood, misrepresented, and subsequently neglected. But an accurate reading of Warfield reveals that his beliefs about and practice of apologetics are faithful to Scripture, and gives us a wealth of insights into, and arguments for, the Christian faith and life. In his essay on apologetics and numerous others in his Collected Works (CW) and Selected Shorter Writings (SSW), Warfield clarified his understanding of apologetics and its place within Christian theology and the Christian’s life.

A Concise Statement of Warfield’s View of Apologetics

According to Warfield, Christian apologetics is the part of Christian theology that explores, explains, and establishes the basis for the knowledge of God that saves sinners from their sin. Yet, because this saving knowledge of God is eternal life, it is for both evangelizing the non-Christian and discipling the Christian. Furthermore, since what apologetics seeks to explore, explain, and establish is God’s eternal life given to the Christian, it is only rightly identified as an organism. Warfield believed that since 1Peter 3:15 tells us that it is necessary for Christians to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, it is impossible for them to be Christians without a reason for that hope. It is, then, the function of apologetics to clarify and validate this rationality to our minds.

Of course, the Christian does this in response to the non-Christian’s questions regarding the hope or faith that the Christian possesses. Even so, because God and the knowledge of him are prior to and independent of the non-Christian and his or her questions, apologetics is not rightly identified or practiced as only a part of the evangelization of non-Christians. Apologetics is not primarily defensive in nature, but rather offensive and constructive, because it is an aspect of the eternal life that the Christian possesses. Since this eternal life is knowledge of God as the creator and redeemer, apologetics could not help but be organically united to God’s revelation of himself in and through his physical creation and supremely in a saving way through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Old and New Testament. Thus, every subject matter of human knowledge and every doctrine in the Christian faith is an aspect of apologetics, even as the Bible is the supreme standard and means through God’s Spirit for interpreting the created order. So, according to the “Lion

B.B. Warfield and Apologetics (cont.)

of Princeton” we ought to think about apologetics as the DNA of the Christian faith and life (cf. CW 1:3-34; 9:3-15 and 49-87).

Correcting False Assessments

One of the accepted and yet faulty narratives regarding Warfield is that he was an evidentialist apologist (one who places much emphasis on the verifiable evidences for Christianity) who did not account for the noetic effects of sin, or the effects that sin has on human thinking. The truth, however, is that Warfield believed that only by subjecting our reasoning to the Scriptures could it be characterized as “right reason,” and it was by such “right reason” that the Christian was to handle the evidence for the Christian faith, and on the basis of which we must make our appeal to the non-Christian. Warfield affirmed, though, that while non-Christians do not ultimately reason rightly about all the available evidence for the Christian faith, we distort Scripture’s message if we regard sin and its effect on nonChristians as rendering them wholly ignorant of God and as something other than human. Christians and non-Christians are both sinners suffering the effects of sin in various ways and to varying degrees. There is not an absolute antithesis between them in this life. The essential difference between them does not mean the non-Christian’s knowledge is a different kind than that possessed by the Christian, so that we could speak of two different and disconnected categories of human knowledge.

Instead, Warfield identified the non-Christian as one who genuinely receives true knowledge but distorts and denies what he or she actually knows. The non-Christian truly knows, but they reason wrongly with and about that knowledge. This is why Warfield urged that the Christian must make his or her appeal with and to “right reason.” While Westminster Seminary professor Cornelius Van Til thought Warfield used “right reason” to refer to some neutral, rational territory upon which the Christian and non-Christian could meet, this seriously misrepresents Warfield’s use of the term and greatly distorts his beliefs about apologetics. Unfortunately, some continue to perpetuate this misrepresentation of Warfield (SSW 2:93-123).

Basic to Warfield’s understanding of apologetics is what he taught regarding the organic union between God and humans. The Triune God is the one who reveals knowledge of himself in and with the creation, and humans are created in God’s image, who, while sinners, still receive true knowledge, and still reason, to some degree, both rightly and wrongly with their genuine knowledge. Among other things, this highlights that in everyone’s knowledge and reasoning the issues of correspondence and coherence are in play.

The issue of correspondence refers to the truth that our reasoning can and should correspond to the physical world, while the issue of coherence refers to the truth that our reasoning can and should be logically consistent, “hold together,” or cohere. Within the various theories and practices of Christian apologetics, an emphasis on correspondence tends to align most readily with an evidentialist approach, which calls the non-Christian’s attention to the empirically verifiable evidence for Christianity. An emphasis on coherence tends to align most readily with a presuppositionalist approach, which challenges the controlling beliefs that determine the non-Christian’s faulty thinking.

B.B. Warfield and Apologetics (cont.)

It was becoming increasingly popular in Warfield’s day to minimize and malign any emphasis on correspondence as it pertained to the Christian faith and life. Theological liberalism, rooted in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), affirmed that the individual’s internal feelings were the essential and defining feature of Christianity. Thus, what became of chief importance within theological liberalism was not whether the individual’s thoughts actually corresponded to what could be objectively and empirically verified, but whether their thoughts made sense to them or cohered, according to their reasoning. This is why Schleiermacher, and many others endorsing his perspective, believed it did not matter whether Jesus actually died on the cross, or whether his death or resurrection could be verified with physical evidence. Such thinking is organically united to what we are confronted with today in people thinking that males and females are not chiefly identified by their biological anatomy but by how they feel, and what they choose about themselves. It is perhaps easy to see how Warfield’s insistence on an empirically verifiable reality created by and actually revealing the only true and living God could earn him the evidentialist label, both in his day and today. It is more accurate to say that Warfield’s perspective was that the Christian addresses the non-Christian’s presuppositions by pressing the evidence for Christianity upon the non-Christian.

Closely associated with the issues of correspondence and coherence are the matters of objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge. To put it simply, objectivity highlights the object that is known, and subjectivity emphasizes the subject or person who knows the object. Objectivity in knowledge alerts us to the notion that there is a realm common to all humans that they do, to some degree, have knowledge of, and in and by which they make knowledge claims. To emphasize correspondence is also to emphasize that the world is filled with objects that are what they are regardless of how any of us feel about them. Thus, there is an objective character to truth. To deny any objectivity would be to affirm total subjectivity, and the idea that no two people could actually communicate, because they are thought to occupy two unbridgeable experiences. Subjectivity in knowledge alerts us to the notion that there is a particular qualified uniqueness to each individual’s experience with the objects of their knowledge. Warfield’s perspective was that since the only living Triune God is the self-existent creator and redeemer, objectivity and subjectivity are bound up in God, and we, as his image bearers cannot escape either the objective or subjective realities of life.

Yet, crucial to understanding Warfield’s perspective on how these things relate to apologetics is that there is a genuinely organic union between the knowing subject or person, and the objects they know, because both are created by the living Triune God and are His revelation of Himself. Thus, every subject matter of human learning is genuinely theological, and it is only God, through the Holy Spirit of Truth who can overcome the effects of sin upon anyone, even while he uses the “right reason” of the Christian as an aid in doing so. Still, this does not mean that it is merely by engaging in apologetics that people can be made Christian, but rather that apologetics supplies “the systematically organized basis on which the faith of” Christians rests (CW 9:16).

Perhaps one of the chief reasons why Warfield has been misunderstood and misrepresented is because Warfield fiercely exposed and resisted the prevailing thought system within the culture of his day that in large measure infected the church and has continued to corrupt and cripple it in various ways to the present. Warfield identified this thought as “anti-supernatural,” which is to say naturalistic (CW 9:25-46). The great danger for the church in every age, according to Warfield, is that she would accommodate her thinking to

B.B. Warfield and Apologetics (cont.)

the prevailing non-Christian system of thought. He affirmed that it is easy for us to do this for a variety of reasons. For one thing, Christians are humans who share a common culture with non-Christians. NonChristian thinking controls our most foundational experience as human beings; the church must reside in the world, even as her members are called not to be of it. Yet, our world and its authorities hardly engage in a willing conversation to evaluate their dogmas over and against biblical truth. No, “the world is very confident of its own conclusions” and presents them as truth. Moreover, our desire to see people saved tends to make us willing to appease the non-Christian wherever we think we can. We have the tendency to modify the teachings of Scripture with beliefs popular in the world. Warfield called this the desertion of the “Christian ground” and “the very essence of heresy.” What he called for was not a retreat into some “minimum” of what Christians think they can defend that actually abandons the full truth of the gospel, and “may go far to forfeit the testimony of the Holy Spirit,” but instead to proclaim “the whole circle of revealed truth” (SSW 2:672-79).

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the great British preacher of the mid-twentieth century, and who was significantly influenced by Warfield, claimed that the “Lion of Princeton” proclaimed the truth so well that his opponents could and would not answer him; they simply ignored him. May we not do so, and may a new generation not misrepresent him either. Let us learn from this great giant that we might have cause to see the power of God’s Spirit in our lives, churches, and culture.

David P. Smith (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Adjunct Professor of Historical Theology at Erskine Seminary and pastor of Covenant Fellowship A.R.P. Church in Greensboro, NC. He is the author of B. B. Warfield’s Scientifically Constructive Theological Scholarship and co-author with Ronald E. Hoch of Old School, New Clothes: The Cultural Blindness of Christian Education.

Easter, Philosophy, and Apologetics

James T. Turner, Jr., Alumnus

Easter as a Philosophy Professor

I am a philosophy professor and, normally, I take great pains not to invoke the Bible or Christian theology as part of a philosophical explanation to a philosophical question while teaching philosophy. Of course, I do try and articulate philosophical answers that I take to be consistent with theological truths. I also flag up when a student’s Christian theological commitments and her philosophical views clash. Philosophy can be used to help—and often does help—one to weed out inconsistent beliefs one holds. But doing philosophy is not doing theology any more than doing math is. So, we practice a particular discipline in my philosophy classes, namely, philosophy. Nevertheless, the Monday following Easter, I could not help but start my classes with a little theology. I told them that Easter is a great time for reflection on why one should think Christianity is true . For, if Jesus did not resurrect bodily from the grave, he is dead. And dead men do not do anything, least of all atone for the sins of other humans and reign over the cosmos. I take it that this is the point that the Apostle Paul is making in 1 Cor. 15:12-19: “…if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins” (v. 17).

Moreover, I encouraged my students to consider that the resurrection of Christ and our future promised resurrections are load bearing for The Gospel, The Good News. Too often I hear The Gospel as a proclamation about Christ’s death. But that is incomplete. To repeat: dead men do not do anything. For Christ’s death to be “good” in the sense that Christians mean it, Christ has to have been resurrected. There’s good news: God’s anointed one is not dead; he has risen! There’s good news: Christ’s resurrection guarantees ours! There’s good news: God’s New Creation has been launched in and through Christ’s resurrection; Jesus is now a living, breathing piece of it! There’s good news: God will one day put everything right, as he did Jesus’ body that first Easter Sunday! The Christian religion stands or falls on whether Christ resurrected. I wanted to make plain to my students—both Christian and non—that I think Easter Sunday is an appropriate annual event during which one can take stock of what the resurrection of Jesus implies about the Christian faith, namely, that it is true!

Perhaps you are thinking: every Sunday should be filled with this sort of taking stock. After all, Christians worship on Sundays precisely because the resurrection occurred on a Sunday, the first day of the week. To this, I am inclined to agree. Every Sunday should be a resurrection celebration. But let us be honest: not every Sunday is highlighted on the calendar—both Christian and non—as an annual celebration. And, whether it is appropriate or not, the average Sunday time of worship can fall into the rank and file of other weekly events. But Easter sticks out. The university where I teach, for example, has a full three-day weekend to mark it (and, of course, Good Friday). All of that is to say that Easter is no run-of-the-mill Sunday. As such, it acts as a more natural catalyst for annual reflection. And so, on Easter, I think it is fitting to reflect more fully on Christ’s resurrection than on any other day.

Doing so is important for me because of the following oddity about my job: my days are filled with thinking about difficult big questions. In my philosophy classes, we think about, for example, the problem of evil. Is

Easter, Philosophy, and Apologetics (cont.)

the existence of a perfectly good and perfectly powerful God logically consistent with the existence of evil? Is the existence of pointless evils consistent with the existence of a perfectly good, all-knowing, and allpowerful God? Difficult questions crop up in my philosophical theology classes too. Is it coherent to think that one and the same being could at the same time be three persons? Is it coherent to think that a God who exists outside of time also exists in time as the human being, Jesus? The answers to these questions are difficult, and the literature attempting to wrestle with these questions includes the best thinking of the best thinkers across millennia. I am not one of history’s great thinkers. So, frequently, I am uneasy about my own answers. Part of my job is to introduce these sorts of questions to my students, most of whom have never thought about them before. Often, like me, students are disquieted by the seemingly endless supply of difficult questions and the seeming paucity of clear and distinct answers to them. As a result, students ask me: given the uncertainty of all of our attempted answers, how and why are you still a Christian? My answer to this question is always the same: because Jesus resurrected bodily from the dead.

I remind myself of Jesus’ resurrection anew every Easter. I have to. The force of the arguments for and against philosophical and theological questions pushes and pulls me sometimes in different directions (and certainly has shifted me in various ways over my nearly two-decades of philosophical and theological research). Often, it is hard to stake out a position. Very often my response to difficult philosophical and theological questions is to provide some possible answers but, in the end, suggest that I am not sure that any one of them is correct. In addition to the philosophical and theological complexity and uncertainty, I readily admit, too, that thoughts about the state of the world—e.g., war, racism, political strife, church infighting, sin—lurk in the recesses of my mind, poised to strike from its shadows with the following claim: “Christianity is not true!” But on Easter I am reminded that Jesus resurrected bodily from the dead.

Philosophy and Apologetics

I am confident that Jesus resurrected bodily from the dead. What is more, I would say that I know that Jesus rose from the dead and that it seems to me impossible to deny that Jesus rose from the dead. These are bold statements. Here is a statement that might seem startling: even though I am confident, I am not sure that Jesus rose from the dead. Why am I not sure ? To begin to see why, consider the nature of philosophical study. Studying philosophy reaps several rewards, among them are the ability to think logically and coherently; the ability better to express oneself in writing and in speech; the ability to explicate an argument that is not explicit in dialogue or prose; the ability to think clearly about intricate and dense subject matter. It also produces (or should produce) a virtue called “epistemic humility,” that is, the virtue of being readily able to admit that one might be wrong about the answer to some question. Philosophy does this by exposing its students to the very complicated nature of reality and the very complicated nature of the finite mind’s tenuous grasp on that reality. It is difficult enough to figure out how and when it is the case that I know mundane beliefs like “that I had breakfast this morning.” It is even more difficult to figure out how and when I know beliefs like “that Jesus rose from the dead.” And, for reasons the knowledge-skeptic will point out, it is very easy to show that one cannot be certain of either of these things (as I like to tell students sitting in my office: I cannot even be certain that they exist; for, I could be dreaming!).

Easter, Philosophy, and Apologetics (cont.)

With these truths in hand, good philosophy can root out bad, overconfident apologetics. Unfortunately, a side effect of the work produced by many popular level apologists is that many Christians are taken to think that, if they just memorize the evidence as it has been handed to them, they can be sure of the truth of Christianity. They can be certain that their beliefs are true. The reality, as anyone who has studied the way knowledge works (in philosophy, this study is called “epistemology”) will tell you, is that one cannot be certain about much of anything, let alone that Christianity is true. As I mention above, one cannot even be certain that other people beside oneself exist. All this means is that we admit that we could be wrong. This does not mean that we are wrong. Moreover, it does not mean that we cannot know that Christianity is true. One can (and I take it that I do)! But it does imply that knowledge does not require certainty. And as any epistemologist will tell you, that’s because knowledge requires only that one’s belief is backed up by good reasons and is true. It does not require that one’s beliefs are infallible.

If you think about this for a moment, you will see I am not saying anything mysterious or controversial. Just consider, for example, a piece of knowledge you gain through your eyesight. Surely, you have mistaken one object as another (ever waved at someone only to have the awkward experience of realizing it is not the person you initially thought it was?). But you do not do this all the time, and on those occasions wherein your beliefs are true, you know them. Even still, these beliefs are not certain. They could be mistaken. We could marshal thousands of examples to demonstrate this obvious fact about our everyday beliefs; but the point is this: knowledge does not require certainty. Yes, we have some beliefs that are certain (e.g., there are no married bachelors; 2+2=4; no prime minister is a prime number). But most of our beliefs are not like this—and this includes our beliefs about the resurrection of Jesus. That this is so suggests that Christians ought not claim to be certain nor to worry about being uncertain. For what it is worth, I think the only persons whose beliefs are all certain are The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit—because they are omniscient! Even still, I am confident that Jesus resurrected bodily from the dead.

Apologetics and the Resurrection

There are competent apologists who focus on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona are two such (perhaps the leading two such). I am thankful for their work and commend it to you. Habermas’ work is a philosophically and historically informed evidential argument for the resurrection. Licona leans less on philosophy (if any at all) and more on biblical exegesis and the historical case for the trustworthiness of resurrection narratives. One probably should add to this N. T. Wright’s seminal work, The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is perhaps the best historical and exegetical work on the resurrection of Jesus, even if it is not a work of apologetics but sober academic historical/ textual investigation. To my mind, all of this makes a good cumulative case for Jesus’ resurrection. But a reminder: rarely can one be sure of a claim; rarely are arguments air-tight, including theirs. I am confident that Habermas, Licona, and Wright would admit as much, being the careful thinkers they are.

The philosopher in me winces when I hear apologists overstate their case. Good philosophy yields a mind more cautious than that. Honesty, too, should restrain the surety of our claims. We are not certain about much. We need not pretend to be. But we also do not need to pretend that we lack good reasons

Easter, Philosophy, and Apologetics (cont.)

for believing that Jesus resurrected bodily from the dead. Here are two of my favorite reasons: first, Jesus’ resurrection was easily falsifiable in the first century. It is falsifiable now. Produce Jesus’ corpse (or the remainder thereof) and Christianity will be shown to be false. I will walk away. But there has been no such production. No body was produced in the city of Jerusalem wherein Christ was buried, and the claim of his resurrection began. One would have thought producing the body of Jesus would have been simple, all things considered (even if the disciples had stolen the body). And in the 2000 years since, no body has been produced—not that folks have not tried! Here is a second reason: even if it were difficult to produce the corpse, it is hard to believe that Peter, say, would be willing to be crucified (as the stories suggest) for what he would have known was a lie. The same is true about the rest of Jesus’ twelve who were killed on account of their resurrection message. They died for proclaiming as true the following: “Jesus resurrected bodily from the dead.” Notice it is not merely the case that they died claiming that Jesus resurrected. Rather, it is that they died for that claim. Now, they either thought this claim was true or they did not. If they did not, they knew it was a lie. That they died for a claim they knew to be a lie is wildly implausible. And they would have known it to be a lie if they stole the body (here you can revisit my first reason). This is a good reason to think they believed that Jesus resurrected bodily from the dead. Couple this with the first reason, and we have two pieces of evidence that help show as rational my belief that Jesus resurrected bodily from the dead. Of course, it does not follow that Christ rose from the dead. It is not a logical certainty. But these reasons contribute to my confidence.

Easter, Philosophy, and Apologetics

My mind is beset on almost all sides with difficult questions in my research portfolio and with difficult questions that impose themselves on me from the state of the world. Often it is hard to make sense of things, even if I can give many different possible answers to a myriad of difficult questions. When it comes to Christianity, Easter is a time to reflect on that which acts as the moorings of my faith: the resurrection of Jesus. Come what may, I can acknowledge that I do not know much, and I can be certain about even less. But I can also, and more importantly, be confident about Jesus’ resurrection. And if Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is true.

James T. Turner, Jr. (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Anderson University. He also received a ThM, ’12 from Erskine Seminary. Dr. Turner is the author of On the Resurrection of the Dead: A New Metaphysics of Afterlife for Christian Thought, and is series editor for the Routledge Studies in Analytic and Systematic Theology.

Herman Bavinck on General Revelation in History

Brett Blackman, Alumnus

One of the great mandates of the Church is to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ to the world. Indeed, to “be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15) is an essential aspect of the mission of God’s people. In this regard, opposition has often come in the form of secular assertions that reality, as understood by reason and experience, is incompatible with the Christian faith. Historically the Church has engaged such claims through a variety of approaches. One approach has been to highlight the deep correspondence that exists between general and special revelation.1 The doctrine of general revelation refers to the universal revelation of God through his acts in nature, history (creation and providence), and humanity (the imago Dei), by which his person and character are made known.2 Scripture attests to the providential governance and divine sovereignty of God over every sphere of reality. Yet for some, history is difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of general revelation. Human atrocities throughout history are commonly used as evidence against the existence of a good, omniscient, and omnipotent God. In addition, atheists often cite history as one example in the case against theism.3 Such terrible events are incompatible, they assert, with the truth claims of Christianity. With that said, how are Christians to respond to such questions? In what sense may history be understood as an aspect of general revelation? To formulate the question differently, In what way(s) may history point to the truth of God? As Christians throughout the ages continue to reflect on these questions, one approach is suggestive in the Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck.

Herman Bavinck on History and General Revelation

In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in the theology of Dutch neo-Calvinist Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), following the publication of the English translation of his four-volume Reformed Dogmatics , along with other significant works. Although the reasons for this renewed and well-deserved attention are numerous, two general themes are frequently highlighted. First, as a theologian bridging the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Bavinck desired to thoughtfully engage with the critical issues of his day, particularly the complex relationship between modernity and orthodoxy.4 In the process of navigating this issue, Bavinck sought to draw upon the deep correspondence, as he viewed it, between general and special revelation. Secondly, while deeply rooted in the Reformed theological tradition, Bavinck often addressed central issues facing the broader Church universal, resulting in a rich and irenic catholicity that pervades much of his writing. With these broad characteristics in mind, one of the significant issues Bavinck frequently addressed was the revelation of God in nature, humanity, and history.5 As we consider the relationship between general revelation and history, Bavinck’s approach is characteristically winsome and nuanced. For this essay, three general aspects of his thought will be helpful in sketching out the essence of his approach.

1. Hermeneutics and History

In his work, Philosophy of Revelation , 6 Bavinck begins his discussion, entitled “Revelation and History,” with the observation that when one commences to talk about history, the intertwined issue of

Herman Bavinck on General Revelation in History (cont.)

hermeneutics (interpretation) immediately becomes evident. In other words, neither the historian nor the reader approaches the subject of history disconnected from the influence of underlying presuppositions rooted in a particular tradition (or worldview). Such presuppositions serve as a hermeneutical lens through which the events of history are interpreted. This lens is evident in the choices the historian makes regarding which historical events to highlight or omit, how the historian distinguishes norms versus anomalies in the process of evaluating the data, and the underlying necessity of trust for the reader to believe the account as it is presented. Bavinck notes, “From the very start, personal interest makes itself felt in our criticism of the witness, and it continues to exercise its influence in the pragmatic description and judgment of events.” 7

For Bavinck, the interjection of hermeneutics in the study of history is inevitable. His view stood in contrast to the modernism of his day which promoted a “positive” (or presuppositionless) account of history.8 The positivist approach led to the belief that history was simply a reflection of evolutionary progression: a singularly upward materialist causality. Bavinck opposed this method (and its conclusion), drawing attention to the fact that this approach was not solely based upon the objectivity which positivism espoused and assumed. Instead, the “preconceived idea” of the “monistic evolutionary view” 9 was, he argues, “silently presupposed.”10 In his critique of positivism, Bavinck notes numerous empirical disparities which, for him, highlight underlying presuppositions which influence the prioritization of certain historical facts at the expense of others. Citing empirical anomalies, complexities, and overlooked factors on several levels (from societal to individual), Bavinck rejects the hypothesis that the meaning of history can be reduced simply to an upward, linear progression and explained in purely naturalistic or mechanistic terms, as positivists claim.11 In addition, he notes that in view of the massive scope and length of human history, presuppositions are also shown in differences of opinion among modernist historians themselves, regarding the cause(s), meaning, and goal of history.12

In his response, Bavinck asserts that the search for explanation is complex. Much can be attributed to the intention and will of both the individual and the collective culture, as well as mankind’s continual “thirst for knowledge.”13 In his treatment of the relationship between revelation (in general) and history, Bavinck utilizes an empirical approach by noting particular facts which have been overlooked by these historians and which, in his estimation, run counter to materialist conclusions. In conjunction with his inclusion of particular historical data, Bavinck makes an insightful observation regarding the complexity of the study of history due to conflicting presuppositions—even among positivists—which immediately turns the discussion in a philosophical direction. To this, argues Bavinck, modernism has no answers.14

In his critique, Bavinck does not conclude that the cause, meaning, and goal of history are solely subjective ideas devoid of an objective anchor of truth or correspondence to reality. In his approach to history, one can discern a critical-realist epistemological approach, in which Bavinck acknowledges the fact that neither scientist nor historian has a purely objective “view from nowhere.” From the standpoint of human finitude, Bavinck holds that all judgments are influenced (whether knowingly or unknowingly) by a context or tradition.15 And yet, at the same time, he also affirms an objective reality to which the transcendent nature of humanity—shown in the study and conceptualization of history itself—ultimately points.16

Herman Bavinck on General Revelation in History (cont.)

2. Transcendence and History

As with all scientific inquiry, Bavinck asserts that there is an objective reality (or meta-narrative) to which the questions and analysis of history ultimately point. For Bavinck, the concept of history points to a metaphysical reality beyond its material constructs. The transcendent nature of mankind is shown in the concept and questions of history, as well as the endeavors of art, philosophy, natural science, and culture itself. Bavinck contends that such innate pursuits (i.e., the “thirst for knowledge and intellectual labor in man”17) are rooted in, and indicative of, general revelation. Bavinck argues that such universal and enduring questions of mankind are ultimately metaphysical, extending beyond the material world to “the realm of eternal ideas.”18 For him, dissatisfaction with that which is solely physical is evidence of the true nature of mankind.19 “This desiderium aeternitatis, this yearning for an eternal order, which God has planted in the heart of man, in the inmost recesses of his being, in the core of his personality, is the cause of the indisputable fact that everything which belongs to the temporal order cannot satisfy man.”20

The existence of philosophy, science, art, and culture testify to the transcendent nature and desire of mankind; yet they are not ultimately satisfying in themselves. They are manifestations of the nature of mankind.21 They, themselves, are not the “highest good,” but only serve as directives toward it. Ultimately, and unbeknownst to him, mankind is perpetually seeking the desiderium aeternitatis—but is doing so in corrupted ways and toward erroneous ends. The insatiably religious nature of mankind, as evidenced by the endurance and ubiquity of religion across time and culture, is also evidence of this.22 Bavinck suggests that the inherent and persistent thirst for knowledge, intellectual strength, and will of humanity throughout history cannot be explained in materialistic terms. Nor can the constant search for meaning in history be adequately explained in such terms. He asserts:

In the chaotic, in the arbitrary, in the accidental, we find no resting place, either for our intelligence or for our heart...[I]t is impossible to determine in a purely empirical way from the facts what course history takes and must take and to what end it is advancing. We feel the need for this knowledge; in our inmost soul...we all believe in such a course and in such an aim in history. For if history is to be truly history, something must be accomplished by it. It is the very sense and value and meaning of history that in it and by it something shall be realized which makes it worthwhile for history to exist, with all its misery and pain. But the positivistic method does not enable us to find this order and aim in history.23

Bavinck highlights the innate human desire to find meaning both in historical events and history as a whole. In this, he also connects the innate need for a direction or telos to which history is moving. “Bare facts... do not satisfy us; we want to see behind the facts the idea which combines and governs them.”24 Such questions regarding the meaning and aim of history are metaphysical in essence.25

Furthermore, Bavinck suggests that the notion of value judgments on the part of the historian presupposes an ethical standard by which such evaluations are made possible. In order for the historian to evaluate anything, “[h]e must proceed from the belief that there are ‘universal values’ . . . and must derive these from ethics.”26 Both the selection and evaluation of events presuppose a position of judgment on the part of the historian. If this is so, asks Bavinck, what is the standard which enables the historian to make such judgments, and where is its origin? For Bavinck, such a standard does not come from the realm of historical facts themselves, but from the transcendent nature of mankind, rooted in the general revelation of God.27

Herman Bavinck on General Revelation in History (cont.)

3. Correspondence and History

As discussed above, Bavinck suggests that the concept, questions, and study of history point to general revelation. But what about the question of correspondence between general revelation and historical events? Can we discern the hand of God in historical events apart from the aid of special revelation? There are several ways Bavinck addresses this question. First, the events of history point to general revelation in the manner in which acts of virtue are elevated and acclaimed, while acts of evil and injustice are, conversely, criticized and condemned in history—pointing back to the divine moral law within mankind.28 Second, as a correlate to the transcendent nature of mankind, Bavinck affirms an innate sense of divine providence in the unfolding of historical events. God is not only Creator, but also sovereignly preserves and governs history. This is also an aspect of general revelation. Says Bavinck:

The doctrine of divine providence is a ‘mixed article,’ known in part to all humans from God’s revelation in nature. It is an article of faith in every—even the most corrupt—religion. One who denies it undermines religion. Without it, there is no longer any room for prayer and sacrifice, faith and hope, trust and love. Why serve God, asks Cicero, if he does not at all care about us? For that reason, all religions agree with the statement of Sophocles: ‘Still great above is Zeus, who oversees all things in sovereign power.’29

Yet along with the acknowledgment of this innate orientation, Bavinck highlights the fact that such belief in divine providence (as observed in pagan religions) is deeply fallen and, as a result, “always swung back and forth between chance and fate.”30

Ultimately for Bavinck, inferences to general revelation in humanity, nature, and history only serve as pieces within a larger picture in regard to apologetics. Bavinck contends that general revelation is internally suppressed by the human heart due to man’s fallen condition,31 and is externally intermingled with the sinful and corrupting effects of the fall in creation. Thus, history (like nature and humanity) is a “mixed witness”— both in its nobility and fallenness.32 Therefore, for Bavinck, Scripture serves as the interpretive lens through which mankind (in conjunction with the illumination of the Holy Spirit) is able to

trace out the revelation of God in nature and history, and puts the means at his disposal by which he can recognize the true and the good and the beautiful and separate them from the false and sinful alloys of men...Scripture sheds a light on our path through the world, and puts into our hands a true reading of nature and history. It makes us see God where we would not have otherwise seen him. Illumined by it, we behold God’s excellences spread abroad in all the works of his hands.33

In this way, Bavinck argues that the truth claims of Christianity—to which general and special revelation testify—correspond with and make sense of the full spectrum of human history. Christianity explains why we see, at certain times and seasons, elements of virtue, love, and altruism rooted in the doctrine of common grace. Pointing back to Calvin, Bavinck avers:

God did not leave sin alone to do its destructive work. He had and, after the fall, continued to have a purpose for his creation; he interposed common grace between sin and creation—a grace that,

Herman Bavinck on General Revelation in History (cont.)

while it does not inwardly renew, nevertheless restrains and compels. All that is good and true has its origin in this grace, including the good we see in fallen man. The light still does shine in the darkness, the spirit of God makes its home and works in all the creation.34

Along with the virtuous aspects of history, the Christian worldview also explains why evil and corruption exist in the world. Likewise, it also explains why mankind simultaneously seeks God and rejects him. Notes Bavinck:

[Human beings] seek him and at the same time they flee from him. They have no interest in a knowledge of his ways, and yet they cannot do without him. They feel themselves attracted to God and at the same time repelled by him. In this, as Pascal so profoundly pointed out, consists the greatness and the miserableness of man...He seeks for God and loses himself in the creature.35

Lastly, the rich complexity of human history displays, for Bavinck, characteristics of diversity within an overarching coherence or unity. In other words, across time and culture universal characteristics of human nature are exhibited—yet, within this universality, aspects of the individuality and diversity of mankind are also displayed. This empirical phenomenon of “diversity within unity” which characterizes the sweep of human history corresponds to the Christian worldview, reflecting the trinitarian nature of God in Scripture.36

Conclusion

In addressing nature, history, and humanity, Bavinck begins with the phenomenal world which, for him, points beyond itself to the transcendent nature of mankind.37 History is an aspect of general revelation as observed in mankind’s persistent drive for progress through science, culture, art, and philosophy, as well as the way in which mankind reflects upon and conceptualizes history: questions regarding history’s purpose, meaning, and goal. Bavinck’s apologetic approach is not deductive, but inductive—giving evidence to the correspondence and sense-making nature of the Christian worldview, governed by Scripture. The virtue and nobility of mankind, as well as the fallenness, turbulence, and struggle that epitomize human history make sense when viewed through the lens of Christianity. “Revelation is a confirmation and explanation of life when it says the essence of history lies in a mighty conflict between darkness and light, sin and grace, heaven and hell.”38

As the Church continues to wrestle with these issues, not only can Bavinck be a helpful guide in discerning the divine “sparks” (to use Calvin) despite humanity’s fallen state, but he also shows how a distinctly Christian view of history can satisfy the mind and heart in its correspondence to the phenomenal world, while also giving witness to Jesus Christ. Bavinck argues that the sweep of human history—in its restlessness, fallenness, and struggle—longs for redemption and reconciliation. This, he argues, has been and will be accomplished in Jesus Christ—who is the great Redeemer not only of God’s people, but of nature and history as well.

Rev. Brett Blackman (PhD Cand., Free University of Amsterdam) is pastor of Cannon’s Creek-Prosperity A.R.P. Church in Newberry, SC. He received an MDiv, ’13 and ThM, ’18 from Erskine Seminary. Rev. Blackman is currently studying the theology of Herman Bavinck under Prof. Henk van den Belt.

Herman Bavinck on General Revelation in History (cont.)

1The correspondence between general and special revelation is broadly articulated, for example, in the Belgic Confession of Faith, Art. II: The Means by Which We Know God

2E.g., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), I.3-5; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 1.335-364; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1.310, 350, hereafter referenced as RD; Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 178. “[F]rom the creation, from nature and history, from the human heart and conscience, there comes divine speech to every human. No one escapes the power of general revelation...[General revelation] maintains in [human beings] the awareness that they have been created in God’s image and can only find rest in God.” RD, 1.321.

3E.g., Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2006), 79-87; Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007), 15-36; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 272-374.

4E.g., John Bolt’s introduction in RD, 1.15. Also see: Bruce Pass, “Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation,” Bavinck Review 7 (2016), 63-114; James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012).

5E.g., RD, 1.321.

6Herman Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2018), hereafter referenced as PoR. Bavinck originally composed this material as a series of lectures (the Stone Lectures) presented mainly at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1908.

7PoR, 94.

8PoR, 92-95.

9PoR, 102.

10PoR, 95.

11PoR, 97-98.

12PoR, 103.

13PoR, 98.

14It is important to note that Bavinck affirms the objectivity of historical facts themselves (which for him are equivalent with general revelation), but he is critical of the notion that, from a human standpoint, any evaluation of history can occur apart from an interpretive lens. Also see: Alister McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (Malden: Blackwell, 2008), 147-158.

15The related relationship between sin and epistemology will be addressed later in this essay.

16E.g., the transcendent “ideas of freedom, of truth, of goodness, [and] of beauty” which, for Bavinck, ultimately correspond to the attributes of God. PoR, 110.

17PoR, 98.

18Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 18. Hereafter referenced as ORF.

19ORF, 17-18.

20ORF, 19.

21ORF, 20-21.

22The religious nature of mankind, as a mark of general revelation (semen religionis), is a significant and recurring theme in Bavinck’s thought. “Nature and history are the book of God’s omnipotence and wisdom, his goodness and justice...Even idolatry presupposes that God’s ‘power’ and ‘divinity’ manifests itself in creatures.” RD, 1.310. Also see: RD, 1.248, 314-320, 349-351; PoR, 117-141.

23PoR, 102-103 (emphasis mine).

24PoR, 108 (emphasis mine).

25PoR, 103.

26PoR, 105.

27PoR, 109.

28ORF, 59.

29RD, 2.593.

30RD, 2.593.

31RD, 1.340.

32ORF, 28.

33ORF, 37-38 (emphasis mine). Also see: Calvin, Institutes, I.6.1, I.14.1.

34Herman Bavinck, “Common Grace,” trans. Van Leeuwen, Calvin Theological Journal 24:1 (April 1989): 51. Also see: Calvin, Institutes, II.2.14-16.

35ORF, 22.

36PoR, 112-115; Eglinton, 131.

37ORF, 42.

38PoR, 115. “With their faith [Christians] do not stand as isolated aliens in the midst of the world but find support for it in nature and history, in science and art, in society and state, in the heart and conscience of every human being. The Christian worldview alone is the one that fits the reality of the world and of life.” RD, 1.515.

NEWS AT ERSKINE

FACULTY/STAFF NEWS

Dr. Steven C. Adamson elected Erskine’s 18th President

Erskine Theological Seminary is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Steven C. Adamson as 18th president of Erskine College and Seminary. He previously served as provost and executive vice president at Arizona Christian University and as provost of The Bible Seminary. Dr. Adamson has garnered 18 years of experience in higher education, including academic administration and teaching in apologetics, church history, and theology.

Dr. Dale W. Johnson Retires

Dr. Dale W. Johnson, Professor of Church History and Director of the Master of Arts in Theological Studies program, has served with Erskine Seminary since 2001. Dr. Johnson is known for his skill as a lecturer and for his scholarship in Reformation studies, especially in his work on John Knox. Upon retirement, he will continue in a part-time capacity at Erskine as Distinguished Professor of Church History. In retirement, Dr. Johnson looks forward to more time with his family and grandchild and to restarting his Reformation study tours to Germany and Scotland in 2023.

Dr. Michael A. Milton Retires

Dr. Michael A. Milton has served with Erskine Seminary in various roles since 1998, when he began as an adjunct faculty member. In 2015, the Lord called Dr. Milton full-time to Erskine as the James H. Ragsdale Professor of Missions and Evangelism and Director of Strategic Initiatives. From 2019–2021 he served as Provost of the Seminary while continuing to teach several seminary classes. Dr. Milton is known for his expertise in designing and teaching online classes and for his pastoral attentiveness to our students. Upon retirement, he will continue in a part-time capacity at Erskine as Distinguished Professor of Missions and Evangelism. In retirement, Dr. Milton looks forward to continuing to write and offering resources for pastoral ministry through his ministry Faith for Living, Inc.

ALUMNI IN ACTION

Rev. Mark Witte (MDiv, ‘08 ; ThM, ‘11)

Serves as pastor of Iglesia Cristiana Presbiteriana (Christian Presbyterian Church) in Toledo, Spain. His wife, Natalie, is a native Ukrainian. Because of this connection, they are uniquely able to minister to the needs of over 20 refugees in their congregation. Rev. Witte and Natalie live with their three children in Toledo, Spain.

Benjamin Mushuhukye (MACE, ‘05; MAPM, ‘06)

Serves as a missionary with World Witness and is Director of Reach the Children Rwanda International (RCRI), an organization that exists to meet the physical, educational, and spiritual needs of orphans and other at-risk children. Benjamin and his wife, Josephine, live in Rwanda with their three children.

Rev. Danny (MDiv, ‘19) and Meredith Myers (MATS, ‘18)

Rev. Myers serves as Assistant Pastor of Smyrna Presbyterian Church in Smyrna, GA. Meredith Myers is the Assistant Web Editor for Ligonier Ministries and a contributor to Tabletalk Magazine. Rev. Myers and Meredith live with their three children in Smyrna, GA.

Chaplain Bridger Bond (MDiv. ‘21)

Serves as a Chaplain for the U.S. Army with the 2-505 Parachute Infantry Regiment at Ft. Bragg, NC. He recently returned from Poland where his unit responded to the crisis in Ukraine. Chaplain Bond and his wife Tiffany live in Southern Pines, NC with their two children.

Master of Theology Doctor of Ministry

For the upcoming Fall and Spring Semesters, we are offering:

Semester In Historical Studies (Old Princeton and Christian Ministry)

Semester In Historical Studies (Ancient Church Apologists)

Semester in Biblical Studies (Mark’s Gospel)

Semester in Theological./Historical Studies (The Spirituality of the Reformers)

The Westminster Assembly Then & Now Cultural Apologetics in Post-Modern America

Theology of Worship in Contemporary Discussion

Seeking the Shalom of Our Community

Vocational Renewal in Pastoral Ministry

The Problem of Pain

Theological Foundations for Ministry

Ministry in Context

LEARN MORE

If you have questions about any of our programs, connect with Robin Broome or Mike Kelly today.

864-379-6571

broome@erskine.edu; kelly@erskine.edu

We offer courses toward all degree programs at our locations in Due West, Columbia, and Greenville, SC, and online through Erskine Online.

CONNECT WITH US ONLINE

erskine.seminary @ErskineSeminary seminary.erskine.edu