Thursday, February 27, 2014

Jesus Calling, from the PCA?

In case you are unfamiliar with the book Jesus Calling, let me bring you up to speed. It is one of the best selling Christian books on the market. Jesus Calling: Enjoying Peace in His Presence by Sarah Young has sold hundreds of thousands of copies since it was first published in 2003. The marketing of this book is only expanding. Type "Jesus Calling" into an Amazon search, and you will find a devotional journal, a devotional for kids, a sequel titled Jesus Today: Experience Hope Through His Presence, and now a Jesus Calling Study Bible

On its surface, Jesus Calling is just another daily devotional, like many others that have come before it. But, Jesus Calling differs from most other devotional books in one significant way. The author writes in the introduction, "I knew that God communicated with me through the Bible, but I yearned for more. Increasingly, I wanted to hear what God had to say to me personally on a given day. I decided to listen to God, with pen in hand, writing down whatever I believed He was saying."

The author claims that the content of Jesus Calling are direct messages from God to her. This is a problem.

I am by no means the first person to point this out. See here, and here, and here for just a few examples.

But, unlike those of you who have been aware of this book for sometime, I only recently became aware of it. And, as I like to do, I started doing some research on the author, Sarah Young. Amazon tells me this: 
Sarah Young is quietly leading millions on a journey of intimacy with Christ. She has been featured in the New York TimesWall Street JournalUSA Today, and Christianity Today and has sold over 10 million books worldwide. Jesus Today received the 2013 ECPA Christian Book of the Year award. Sarah and her husband lived overseas for decades, counseling and planting churches in Japan and Australia. They currently live in the US.
I found out that Mrs. Young attended Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, and spent some time at L'Abri (she mentions both these facts in the introduction to Jesus Calling).

But, what I have not seen anyone else point out is that Mrs. Young and her husband are listed as missionaries on the PCA's Mission to the World site (scroll down to "Young, Steve and Sarah" on this page.) [Note: The Youngs are currently listed as being on "Home Missionary Assignment" meaning they are on leave from the field.]

Perhaps this is not a surprise to anyone. Maybe this is old news. But, to me, it came as a bit of a shock that the woman who claims to have direct revelation from God is also sponsored by a supposedly-Reformed mission agency. 

After all, our Confession of Faith makes it clear that Scripture is necessary, because, "those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased." (WCF 1.1). Scripture is sufficient (WCF 1.6, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."), and Scripture is the final authority unto which all matters Spiritual are to be appealed (WCF 1.10, "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.")

I wonder, then, where is there room for Mrs. Young's supposed messages from God? I also wonder how someone who is a member of the PCA could claim to receive direct revelation from our Lord Himself and have absolutely nothing done about it.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

An Outline of Christianity and Liberalism, Part 1: Introduction


In preparation for a men's fellowship talk I'll be giving in March at Grace Presbyterian Church in Springfield, IL (click here for directions), I'll be posting some notes from Machen's Christianity and Liberalism over the next few days. I'll be compiling and distilling these notes into a presentation.

One thing I have been struck by while reading this book is how relevant it still is today. If you're unfamiliar with it, it was first published in 1923. If you've never read it, I highly encourage you to do so.


Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism: An Outline

  1. Introduction
    1. Thesis: There exists a religion which calls itself Christianity and uses Christian terminology, but which, in fact, is not Christian. Machen names it “Liberalism.”
      1. “In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict: the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called ‘modernism’ or ‘liberalism.’” (2)
      2. “Despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.” (7)
    2. Background: Changes in life in past 100 years (1820s-1920s): Industrial age, rise of “science”, naturalism.
      1. “But manifold as are the forms in which the movement appears, the root of the movement is one; the many varieties of modern liberal religion are rooted in naturalism--that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God (as distinguished from the ordinary course of nature) in connection with the origin of Christianity.” (2)
    3. Modernism: The view that all the past is suspect. The modern age is the best age in every respect.
      1. “It is no wonder that that appeal is being criticized today; for the writers of the books in question [the Bible] were no doubt men of their own age, whose outlook upon the material world, judged by modern standards, must have been of the crudest and most elementary kind. Inevitably the question arises whether the opinions of such men can ever be normative for men of the present day; in other words, whether first-century religion can ever stand in company with twentieth-century science.” (4)
    4. Proposed solution
      1. Separation of religion from science
        1. “Religion, it is said, is so entirely separate from science, that the two, rightly defined, cannot possibly come into conflict.” (4-5)
        2. PROBLEM: The truth claims of Christianity are based in real, historical acts.
          1. “For, rightly or wrongly, religion during the centuries has as a matter of fact connected itself with a host of convictions, especially in the sphere of history, which may form the subject of scientific investigation; just as scientific investigators, on the other hand, have sometimes attached themselves, again rightly or wrongly, to conclusions which impinge upon the innermost domain of philosophy and of religion.” (5)
      2. Liberalism’s answer: Rescue the core religious principles of Christianity.
        1. The liberal theologian seeks to rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities [the person of Christ, redemption through His death and resurrection] are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as constituting ‘the essence of Christianity.’” (6)
        2. PROBLEM: Modernism will not stop if we abandon the “non-essentials.”
          1. “Modern materialism, especially in the realm of psychology, is not content with occupying the lower quarters of the Christian city, but pushes its way into all the higher reaches of life; it is just as much opposed to the philosophical idealism of the liberal preacher as to the Biblical doctrines that the liberal preacher has abandoned in the interests of peace. Mere concessiveness, therefore, will  never succeed in avoiding the intellectual conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no ‘peace without victory’; one side or the other must win.” (6)
        3. PROBLEM: What is left when “non-essentials” are stripped away is not christianity at all.
          1. “What the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category.” (6-7)
    5. Liberalism is un-Christian
      1. “In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend.” (7-8)
    6. Modernism’s Problems
      1. Decline of the spiritual state of man
        1. “The improvement appears in the physical conditions of life, but in the spiritual realm there is a corresponding loss. The loss is clearest, perhaps, in the realm of art.” (10)
        2. “Material betterment has gone hand in hand with spiritual decline.” (15)
      2. Decline of individual freedoms
        1. “In the interests of physical well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the winds.” (11)
    7. Machen’s Solution
      1. Christianity/Reformation
        1. “But the Christian religion which is meant is certainly not the religion of the modern liberal Church, but a message of divine grace, almost forgotten now, as it was in the middle ages, but destined to burst forth once more in God’s good time, in a new Reformation, and bring to light and freedom mankind.” (15-16)

Sunday, December 9, 2012

A Puritan Connection to the Upcoming Star Trek Film?


Warning: prepare yourself for a strange hybrid of theological and scifi geekery!

If you are a fan of Star Trek, you may have already seen the trailer for the upcoming Star Trek film "Star Trek Into Darkness". In the trailer, we are given a glimpse of the villain, though we are not given his name. There is speculation in may be Khan, the best known foil to Captain Kirk. There is also some buzz that it may be Gary Mitchell, a villain from the original series (he appeared in the episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before"). When I heard that the villain maybe Mitchell, I looked him up.

Here is the article I found: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Gary_Mitchell 

In that article, the writers state that Mitchell, who develops super-human traits after an encounter with the galactic barrier (I warned you this would get geeky!), should "become oracular, in the sense of Moses or even Cotton Mather."

Well, there you have it. If the villain of the upcoming Star Trek film does indeed turn out to be Gary Mitchell, remember that part of the original inspiration for the character was none other than the Puritan, Cotton Mather himself!

Friday, April 20, 2012

Quote of the Day: William Tyndale

John Foxe describes an argument with a "learned" but "blasphemous" clergyman, who had asserted to William Tyndale that, "We had better be without God's laws than the Pope's." Swelling with emotion, Tyndale responded: "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The Hunger Games: A Review at Greenbaggins

Over at Greenbaggins, a very brief review of The Hunger Games novels has been posted. It is worth reading the few short paragraphs. I believe he makes some wonderful points about violence as portrayed in the books (which I have not read, for the record), as well as how that applies to violence in our society. Further, the lack of reason for violence or reason why such violence is wrong is completely missing from the novels, per this review. 

All in all, some good food for thought, especially if you or someone you know will be (or already has) read these books.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Apologetics and the Reformed Church: Part 3

It has been quite a while since my last installment of "Apologetics and the Reformed Church" but I wanted to highlight a wonderful apologetic ministry that, while not explicitly Reformed, has a lot of reformed underpinnings to it (not the least of which is their presuppositional approach to apologetics). 

Answers in Genesis exists to "enable Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively." They "focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible."

 Their website contains a wealth of information and very helpful articles mostly on the subject of the age of the earth and the proper interpretation of  the first few chapter of the book of Genesis, videos, and other educational resources.

Perhaps the biggest venture of Answers in Genesis recently has been their Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati, OH. I look forward to eventually taking my family back east and visiting the museum.

If you are unsure how to answer the charges brought by those outside (and inside!) the Church when it comes to questions of science and the Bible, I heartily recommend the ministry of Answers in Genesis!

[Do you have a favorite reformed apologetic ministry? Feel free to post it in the comments and I may highlight it in a future post in my "Apologetics and the Reformed Church" series.]

Past Apologetics and the Reformed Church installments:

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Notes on Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended by Greg Bahnsen: Chapter 1

I realize I am a couple of years behind, but I was finally able to buy a book I have wanted to read since I first heard of it: Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended by Greg Bahnsen. The story behind the publication of this book is quite remarkable (the manuscript was lost behind a book case in Dr. Bahnsen's office for years!), but the content of the book is even more amazing.

Having gone to grad school at Biola University, I did not encounter many (or any? Well, maybe one.) presuppositionalists. So, reading Bahnsen's book has been a bit of a breath of fresh air. Bahnsen puts forth an apologetic which is consistently Biblical and Reformed.

I've only read the first chapter, thus far, but what I hope to do is blog my notes on each chapter as I finish them. I hope this encourages those of you who have not read this book to do so, and I also hope to be able to return to my notes in the future to use a reference, since I have a strong feeling I will be referring to this book for a long time to come. (NOTE: I will use the blog label "PASD" on all posts related to Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended to make it easier to find them!)

PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS: STATED AND DEFENDED
Greg Bahnsen
(edited by Joel McDurmon)

NOTES ON
Chapter 1: Introduction: God in the Dock?

Thesis of the Book: "The purpose of this treatise is to exhibit presuppositional apologetics as the only faithful and sound method of contending for the Christian hope and biblical message." (4)

Summary of Chapter 1
 
A Christian Apologetic MUST:
  1. Exalt Christ as Lord over all, including argumentation and reasoning (3)
  2. Be exercised upon the infallible and presupposed authority of the Word of Christ in Scripture (3)
  3. Start with Scripture coordinated with the Holy Spirit's inner testimony to the regenerate heart (5)
    1. NOTE: The theme of Scripture + Spirit runs throughout Chapter 1
  4. Submit to and adopt a revelational epistemology and scriptural apologetic that are honoring to God and powerful tools against unbelief (5)
  5. Be based on God's self-attesting revelation as the firm foundation of all knowledge (5)
  6. Call men to covenantal obedience in terms of God's Word and praying for the operation of the Holy Spirit (6)
  7. Interpret facts properly--that is as God interprets them--through the foundation of God's special revelation (6)
  8. Use reason in its legitimate function as a servant or tool of God's Word rather than its judge (6)
  9. Have a view of fulfilling the cultural mandate and being conformed to the image of the Savior by the power of Christ's Spirit (6)
  10. Apply the Christian presupposition by
    1. Bringing God's truth and commands to bear upon the lives of unbelievers (6-7)
    2. Doing an internal critique of the non-Christian's system (7)
  11. Partly consist of an aggressive offense (7)
  12. Seek the repentance of the sinner (7)
  13. Begin with the presupposition of the Bible's truth (10)
  14. Answer the question, "What standard should be utilized for guidance, judgment, and argument?" (11)
    1. The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture (WCF 1.10)
    2. The inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (WCF 1.5)
  15. Have as the final criterion for the Christian in every department of his thinking (theology and philosophy, proclamation and defense) the self-attesting word of God. (12)
  16. Endeavor to demonstrate that without Christian presuppositions there is no intelligible use of facts and logic--human knowledge and interpretation fail instantly (14)
  17. Argue that the non-Christian's epistmology and corresponding metaphysic not only prevent him from coming to faith in Christ, but they prevent him (if held consistently) from coming to any knowledge whatsover. (15)
  18. Appeal to the necessity of Christianity's truth (15)
  19. Pit the unbelievers system of belief as a unit against the believer's system of thought as a unit (16) [NOTE: Worldview vs. worldview]
  20. Set forth its outlook by stressing the kind of God to whom it is committed, the nature of the world in relation to God, and the nature of man as God's creature (16).
  21. Be "Thinking God's thoughts after Him." (16)
  22. Work through the nature and implications of the unbeliever's worldview. (17)
  23. Make its point of contact the actual state of affairs: man as God's image, the suppressed knowledge of God, the world as totally revelatory of God (19)
  24. Show the unbeliever the irresolvable conflict between his espoused principles and ours, and then argue that apart from the self-attesting Christ of Scripture his thinking--based on autonomous presuppositions--loses meaning, coherence, and intelligibility. (20)
  25. Call for the unbeliever's unconditional surrender (20)
  26. Defend Christianity as a complete worldview (21)
  27. Be transcendental in character (21)
  28. Show that Christianity is reasonable in virtue of the impossibility of the contrary (21)
  29. Apply the truth of God's revelation to the unbeliever by: (21)
    1. Setting forth the pervasive, positive evidence provided by God of His veracity
    2.  Performing an internal critique of the unbeliever's worldview and presuppositions so as to show that they destroy the possibility of human knowledge
A Christian Apologetic MUST NOT:
  1. Take an unattached or neutral stance with respect to his faith in order to win the unbeliever over to Christ's authority (3)
  2. Seek to externally verify the Christian presupposition, but apply it (see 10 above) (6) 
  3. Seek autonomously to verify God's Word. (9)
  4. Settle for the conclusion that Christianity is possibly, perhaps probably, true. (15) 
  5. Make its point of contact a "religious neutral" common ground, nor facts and logic as the unbeliever falsely conceives them. (19)
  6. Consent that the facts have been properly interpreted unless the certainty of Scripture's truth is our conclusion--not merely its probable truth. (21) 
  7. Error to one side or the other, as both Kuyper and Warfield did: (21-22)
    1. The antithesis between the natural mind and the regenerated mind, Kuyper saw, would produce opposing theories of knowledge (21)
      1. Kuyper drew the illegitimate inference that apologetics was virtually useless
      2. Apologetics and communication with the unbeliever, according to Kuyper, were seen as hopeless because of the unbeliever's depravity
    2. Warfield drew the illegitimate inference that the natural man, using "right reason," could interpret and judge the revelation of God correctly. (22)
Notes on Specific Sections of Chapter 1

Autonomy vs. Revelational Authority (4-7)
  • Natural theology that reasons autonomously from logical and/or empirical grounds to God results in an exclusion of revelational necessity and authority. (4)
  • Man suppresses the Truth in unrighteousness (4)
  • History of the downfall of apologetics (5)
  • God's self-attesting revelation must be taken as the firm foundation of all knowledge (5)
  • Systems of philosophy to be wary of (6)
    • Rationalism and Empiricism (6)
  • The only proper starting point for an adequate theology and apologetic is God's special revelation; only upon this necessary, sufficient, authoritative, and clear foundation can any fact receive a proper interpretation--God's interpretation. (6)
Who Shall Judge (7-10)
  • We defend a genuine system of authority that cannot be known except by divine revelation; this inscripturated Word from God stands in judgment over all and is itself to be judged by no one. (7-8)
  • The submission to this authoritative revelation is caused, not by impudent reasoning, but by the Holy Spirit. (8)
  • J. I. Packer, "...transcending reason's power to verify..." (8)
  • The fact that God has delivered redemptive special revelation should itself indicate to us that we cannot overture the unregenerate to use principles of logic and science rooted in natural revelation (which he suppresses in unrighteousness) to evaluate the Bible. (8)
  • Abraham Kuyper, "The psychiater, who treats the maniac, cannot render his method of treatment dependent upon the judgment of his patient." (8)
  • John Murray, "This is just saying that rational demonstration is not he ground of faith...God alone is adequate witness to himself." (9-10)
    • NOTE: Hebrews 6:13
  • Faith and Reason (10):
    • Faith precedes and undergrids any and all genuine understanding by the human intellect. (10)
    • Faith is not established upon the groundworkings of reason, but vice versa.
    • Human understanding can never be made the verification of faith since without faith there is no proper understanding available to man whereby he might judge.
    • Augustine, "I believe in order to understand."
    • Scripture is an absolutely necessary presupposition, the assurance of which is produced by the Holy Spirit.
By What Standard? (10-20)
  • John Calvin (11):
    • Scripture is self-authenticated; hence it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning.
    • The certainty it attains by the testimony of the Spirit
    • We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean.
  • Central question: What standard should be utilized for guidance, judgment, and argument? (11-12)
    • The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture (WCF 1.10)
    • The inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (WCF 1.5)
  • This self-attesting revelation of God is objectively true and authoritative, even though subjective persuasion about it comes only by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit (12)
  • By the standard of God's self-attesting word. (12)
  • The final criterion for the Christian in every department of his thinking (theology and philosophy, proclamation and defense) is the self-attesting word of God. (12)
The Insufficiency of Traditional Methods (13-15)
  • All facts and logic must support the truth of Christianity (13)
  • Facts are unintelligible and without meaningful interpretation apart from Christianity (13)
  • Christianity is the only reasonable outlook available to men (13)
  • Fideism says Christianity is not a matter of reason (13)
  • Endeavor to demonstrate that without Christian presuppositions there is no intelligible use of facts and logic--human knowledge and interpretation fail instantly (14)
  • Unbeliever is not uncommitted and neutral from the outset (14)
  • Unbeliever has been begging the question (14)
  • Nobody is a disinterested observer (14)
  • All men have presuppositional commitments prior to their examination of various hypotheses (14)
  • Only within the context of the Christian world view could the unbeliever know anything at all (14)
  • We must argue that the non-Christian's epistemology and corresponding metaphysic not only prevent him from coming to faith in Christ, but they prevent him (if held consistently) from coming to any knowledge whatsoever. (15)
  • Appeal to the necessity of Christianity's truth (15)
The Necessity of a Presuppositional Apologetic (15-18)
  • Neutrality is unattainable (15)
  • There are no facts or uses of reason which are available outside of the interpretive system of basic commitments or assumptions which appeals to them (15)
  • Thus there can be no direct proof offered for the truth of either perspective (15)
  • The argument must pit the unbelievers system of belief as a unit against the believer's system of thought as a unit (16) [NOTE: Worldview vs. worldview]
  • When the Christian sets forth his outlook he will stress the kind of God to whom he is committed, the nature of the world in relation to God, and the nature of man as God's creature (16).
  • The standard of meaning and truth is always the mind of God (16).
  • "Thinking God's thoughts after Him." (16)
  • The fall did not take away man's reasoning and moral decision-making; it removed their perfection, giving them a new perverted direction (16)
  • All of reality (every aspect thereof) must now be seen correctively through the instruction of Scripture (16).
  • Scriptural revelation is necessary for man, authoritative over man, and communicated clearly to man. (16)
  • Because everything outside the Bible derives its meaning and intelligibility from what is infallibly taught only in the Bible, nothing outside the Bible is in a position to verify it independently and self-sufficiently (17).
  • Facts and logic will not be intelligible and used correctly apart from submission to the truth of Scripture. (17)
  • Christ is the necessary starting point for knowledge (17).
  • Facts and logic are meaningful and useful to man within the context of Christ's word. (17)
  • The apologist must work through the nature and implications of the unbeliever's worldview. (17)
  • As a creature he can and does use his mind to know things. (17)
  • As fallen he will not--and morally cannot--love God, profess knowledge of Him, or reason in a way that is subject to the authority of God's revelation. (17)
  • The unbeliever sees (18):
    • The world as contingent
    • The standards of logic as abstract
    • Himself as autonomous
    • The world as religiously neutral
  • The unbeliever will consider his thinking and interpretation to be normal and normative (18)
  • An insurmountable tension exists between the contingent, diverse, fluctuating, chance character of his experience and history and the necessary, uniform, unchanging, regular character of his reasoning principles. (18)

Christ the Only Foundation for Reasoning (18-20)
  • How should the unbeliever decide whether or not to receive the word of God in Scripture as true? In attempting to decide for himself and on his own standards, he will have already  decided against the God who is revealed in Scripture, who makes the unqualified and unchallengeable claim that all thinking must be subordinate to Him. (18)
  • The unbeliever will charge Christianity with being unfactual or illogical (19)
    • While asserting that no one can know anything for sure, he will claim to know that Christianity must be false! (19)
  • We always have a point of contact (19)
  • Not a common ground which is religiously neutral, nor is it facts and logic as he falsely conceives them (19)
  • The point of contact is the actual state of affairs (19)
  • The unbeliever is able to think correctly about our argumentation and is always accessible to the gracious work of God's Spirit (19)
  • No fact can be understood, and no reasoning can be meaningful, apart from Christ as the Creator and Redeemer of men. (19)
  • Faith in the self-attesting Christ of Scripture is the beginning, not the end result, of wisdom. (20)
  • In debating with the unbeliever we will need to show him the irresolvable conflict between his espoused principles and ours, and then argue that apart from the self-attesting Christ of Scripture his thinking--based on autonomous presuppositions--loses meaning, coherence, and intelligibility. (20)

Developing a Faithful Apologetic (20-23)
  • Van Til urges us to call for the unbeliever's unconditional surrender (20)
  • Van Til renounces the claims of neutrality and will not consent that the facts have been properly interpreted unless the certainty of Scripture's truth is our conclusion--not merely its probable truth. (21)
  • The truth of God's Word is the precondition of intelligibility for man's thinking and interpretive efforts (21)
  • The Christian apologist wishes to show that Christianity is reasonable in virtue of the impossibility of the contrary (21)
  • Van Til applies the truth of that revelation to the unbeliever by: (21)
    • 1. Setting forth the pervasive, positive evidence provided by God of His veracity
    • 2. Performing an internal critique of the unbeliever's worldview and presuppositions so as to show that they destroy the possibility of human knowledge
  • The antithesis between the natural mind and the regenerated mind, Kuyper saw, would produce opposing theories of knowledge (21)
    • Kuyper drew the illegitimate inference that apologetics was virtually useless
    • Apologetics and communication with the unbeliever, according to Kuyper, were seen as hopeless because of the unbeliever's depravity
  • Warfield drew the illegitimate inference that the natural man, using "right reason," could interpret and judge the revelation of God correctly. (22)
  • Apologetics is definitely useful, for the unbeliever is still a creature made in God's image and God has made His revelation manifest to all men. (22)
  • Other apologetical systems either fail to be genuinely presuppositional, or their presuppositions fail to be genuinely biblical (23)
    • They seek a neutral common ground
    • They are too concessive to the unbeliever
    • They aim to show Christianity as probably true.
  • Those who do not utilize the transcendental kind of defense found in Van Til's presuppositionalism treat Christianity  as a viable hypothesis to be considered by the unbeliever and tested according to certain standards: logical coherence, empirical evidence, personal utility, or a combination of them all. (23)