Defending Adam

As some of you already know, we have had an on-going discussion with Dan Trabue and his pal, who remains anonymous, regarding the historicity of Adam, the nature of Scripture, the justice of God, etc. I have decided to pull one final post together on this subject before moving on to other issues. Dan insists that Adam is fictional, belonging to the genre of myth. It has been my position that Dan has a hidden motive for why Adam must be myth as opposed to history. In our discussions with Dan he has rejected the reliability of Luke, the binding nature of Scripture, the supernatural source of Scripture, divine judgment, and has defended gay Christianity. The profile of Dan at this point seems clear and it is this profile that I have said motivates and drives Dan’s interpretation of Scripture more than any other factor. The truth is that each of us come to Scripture with the same challenge and it is only with the help of the Holy Spirit that we can place our prejudices aside and allow Scripture to do its work on our heart as opposed to us imposing the sin in our heart on the text.

Before I dive into this final summary regarding a defense of the historic Adam, I should say a few things about the issue of theological or philosophical hermeneutics. No one comes to the Scripture with a philosophically neutral attitude. I have made this point with Dan Trabue repeatedly. A person already has adopted or embraced a view of the nature of Scripture and its contents before opening its pages. It is abundantly evidence that most modern approaches to Scripture are not themselves the result of biblical faith. Rather, they employ methods that are themselves principles of the autonomous man.

To put it very bluntly, the popular approach to the text is to read it on one’s own terms, as a product of human ingenuity. This modern critical approach creates a massive ditch between human reason and biblical faith. Additionally, it places human reason in a position of superiority over faith. Either one’s understanding of the nature of Scripture is informed by Scripture, which is the position of faith, or it is informed by human reason, which is the position of modern critical approaches to the Bible. 

My approach to Scripture is that Scripture has its origin in the mind of God, that it is divine revelation designed specifically to inform us of the God who is our great King, Creator, and Redeemer; that Scripture is clear on the main points of the revelation it expresses, that Scripture is self-attesting, binding, our final authority, and that all truth claims must be subject to the truth revealed therein. In short, Scripture is a divine artifact. Scripture is unique and not comparable to any other literary work that has ever existed in the history of man. That position is a faith position. I arrived at that position, like every other regenerate Christian arrives at it: through faith in Christ. In other words, once faith is removed from our approach to Scripture, and in its place a naturalistic approach from human reason is adopted, one can take just about any view of the text they wish. Moreover, it is impossible to demonstrate that Scripture is supernatural revelation by means of rational argumentation and historical evidence. The conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation is something that only the work of God in regeneration can produce. And so it does. Now, with that in mind, lets provide a Christian defense of the historic Adam.

Contrary to some schools of thought, Genesis 1-2 does not belong to the genre of ancient Hebrew poetry. The text follows the structure of ancient Hebrew narrative. In the interest of space I will point to the ten sections headed by the toledoth as evidence. We read in Gen. 2:4, “This is the account (toledoth) of the heavens and the earth. The author intends to provide the reader with a true account for how the heavens and the earth came to exist. This same language is used in Gen. 5:1 when we read about Adam’s genealogy, which takes us from Adam to Noah. In the context of that actual genealogy, we read that it was “In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. It seems that Moses may have been correcting some false ideas about how it all got started from the very beginning. We see the use of this toledoth in repeated in Gen. 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1 and 37:2. All these sections deal with actual persons living in actual places at specific times. Adam and his offspring are listed alongside the rest of the individuals. The conclusion anyone should reach is that the writer portrayed Adam as historical because he included him alongside the rest of these historical figures.

In addition to this evidence, we must also not overlook the first gospel, given in Gen. 3:15. The promise to send a deliverer that would crush the head of Satan was not bound up in myth. It is far more reasonable to conclude that since Jesus Christ was the real seed that really crushed the head of Satan that the promise was historical top to bottom. Since the Christ event took place in time and space, we must conclude that the promise of Christ took place in time and space. If one is going to classify Adam as myth, they must classify the entire book of Genesis as myth.

Additional evidence that Adam was historical is located in 1 Chronicles 1. The author of this text provides a genealogy that begins with Adam and takes us all the way to David, Saul, and the people of Israel. The sheer volume of details spanning several chapters is more than staggering. It seems dishonest to adopt a contradictory opinion in light of the amount of evidence in this section of Scripture alone.

Job asks if he has covered his transgression like Adam? (31:33) Job was obviously familiar not only with Adam but with the details surrounding Adam’s sin. God, in His rebuke of Ephraim and Judah says that these have broken the covenant just like Adam had broken the covenant. (Hos. 6:7) If Adam was myth, so too was the covenant. But we know the covenant is real, historic, existing in time and space. Additionally in the New Testament we reference Luke’s tracing of Christ’s genealogy all the way from Christ back to Adam. (Lu. 3) Paul says that death reigned from Adam until Moses. (Rom. 5:14) The use of the Greek word mechri refers to a continuous extent of time up to a point. In order for Paul to employ this word, we meant conclude that he believed that Adam, like Moses, actually existed in time. Myths do not exist in time. Additionally, Jude describes the prophecy of Enoch, a man who lived in the seventh generation from Adam. Enoch, living seven generations from Adam indicates that Jude believed in a historical Adam.

Jesus Christ Himself gives us the clear indication that he believed in the historical account of Adam and Eve in the garden. Jesus’ view that divorce was not permissible under just any circumstances and that those who ignored those circumstances and remarried were committing adultery is grounded on His understanding of the historical creation account of Adam and Eve. We see this in Matt. 19:1-12. Jesus said that God created male and female from the beginning and that man would leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Jesus’ reference is clear: Adam and Eve. The ground for biblical marriage is anchored in the historical reality of our first parents, Adam and Eve.

It is here that I believe Dan and his anonymous friend find their philosophy threatened by Scripture and therefore, insist that Genesis is myth. Dan attends a gay church over in Kentucky. These secessionists have left the Christian Church because they do not like the Christian ethic. In particular, they do not like the sexual ethic expressed in traditional Christianity that condemns any and all sex outside of biblical marriage and that includes gay sex in all forms. As a result, Dan is highly motivated to find a loophole around the historical Adam. And so he does. All the evidence above is dismissed and replaced with this: Genesis sort of sounds like other myths in how the sentences are put together, so it must be myth too. That is the extent of the evidence offered up by Dan and his pal anonymous.

Christians have to realize the men are not argued into believing that the Bible is literally the very Word of God, given to us supernaturally through the prophets of God and the apostles of Christ and their very close associates. This belief is not a scientific belief. It is not a belief that is the product of unaided human reason. Men do not examine the claim that the Bible is the Word of God by use of autonomous human reason, scientific investigation, and historic and rational argumentation, only then to embrace it as it truly is. Men can only embrace the divine word, as it is by faith alone. This is not to say that there is no rational defense for Scripture. There most certainly is and I make that defense often. But the rational defense and argument for Scripture rests upon the presuppositions of Christian faith. If we are to argue for Scripture, then our argument must be faithful to Scripture. How clumsy it is to abandon Scripture in our attempt to argue for Scripture. But men do this more often than not. We do not only end with Scripture, but we also begin with Scripture. The only way to defend Scripture while being faithful to Scripture is to begin with Scripture, and to argue from Scripture, and to end with Scripture. Someone will ask what is our evidence for our belief about Scripture as if we must have something external to Scripture in order to get to our starting position on Scripture. This is a mistake. Our evidence for Scripture is Scripture. Our understanding of Scripture, or the nature of Scripture, is informed by Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit. And this fact, that the Holy Spirit is necessary to understand the nature of Scripture, is highly offensive to the autonomous man. He (men like Dan) insists that our criteria for our view of Scripture not only come from someplace other than Scripture, but also that it find commendations from men like him. To this we say, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12)

Presuppositional Defense of Scripture

It is not much of a secret these days that we have numerous people in American as well as other western cultures that want to be numbered with the saints and identified as Christian without having to hold either to the one and only ancient standard of belief and practice that has been handed down in the Church from it’s inception. I have encountered a very kind man over at Michael Kruger’s blog who fits this category very well. He was reared in a Southern Baptist Church in what he calls were the traditional teachings of conservative Christianity. Now, my new friend says that he no longer thinks the Bible is the inspired, authoritative Word of God that is both binding and our final authority for faith and practice. He also has denied that God would assign a 16 year-old unregenerate youth to eternal damnation because that punishment would just not be just. Additionally, he has denied that Adam is a literal historical figure, claiming that all ancient writers wrote in non-literal ways to convey history and that there stories should not be interpreted as actual history. Adam is one of many, many myths recorded in the OT as far as it goes and we should not read more into that account than we need to in order to learn the lessons that author of Genesis was seeking to convey. What were those lessons? It is really difficult to say based on such a hermeneutic. The purpose of this blog is to provide a very short defense of the Christian claim that the Bible, as the Word of God, is self-authenticating, self-sufficient, and self-interpreting, and as such, it is authoritative and binding on the covenant community.

The Psalmist tells us “In God, whose word I praise, In God I have put my trust;” (Ps. 56:4) Here we see the Psalmist actually praising not God, but God’s word. So much for bibliolatry. Then again just a few verses later,        “In God, whose word I praise, In the Lord, whose word I praise.” (Ps. 56:10) Clearly the Psalmist had the highest possible view of Scripture if he is going to actually praise it. The Psalmist believed that God’s word purifies us from sin. “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word.” (Ps. 119:9) If the Word of God purifies, then it follows that it must itself be of the purest essence. The Word of God is holy and being holy, it sanctifies. The Psalmist states this again in a different way, Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You. (Ps. 119:11) This ancient view that the Word of God, being holy, being true, being pure, being perfect, has a cleansing effect is restated in the NT. We will come to that in due time. Suffice it to say that ancient writings of the OT inform us that the Word of God is to be praised and that this Word is holy, perfect, and that it cleanses from sin and helps protect us from sin and error.

Solomon tells us in the second chapter of Proverbs that the Word of God imparts wisdom, knowledge, righteous judgment, understanding, discernment, and the fear of God. It delivers us from the evil way. Repeated we are instructed in the Proverbs to given attention to the Word of God and by it we shall live. The theme throughout the Proverbs is that the Word of God produces everything we need to order our lives in a wise, righteous, and holy manner from beginning to end. The wisest human to ever live thought that the very key to knowledge and understanding was situation in the Word of God.

Jesus affirmed that man lives by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. In Matt. 15:4-6, Jesus identified Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy as the Word of God. In fact, Jesus accused the Pharisees of refusing to recognize the force or power of the Word of God – invalidating it’s authority by replacing it’s clear teachings with their own traditional views which were an admixture of ancient Scripture and autonomous Jewish philosophy. This is significant because Jesus has now identified the Sacred Writings, the Scripture, with the Word of God.

Jesus Himself, according to John was not only God incarnate, He was the Word of God made flesh. Not only this, the words of Jesus were also the Word of God because Jesus is God. Jesus said that those who hear His word and do not do it are like the fool who builds his house on the sand so that when judgment comes, he is destroyed by his own refusal to acknowledge the power and authority inherent in the Word of God. (Matt. 7:24) Moreover, Jesus said that if anyone was ashamed of His Word in this life, He would be ashamed of them in the life to come. (Mk. 8:38) In fact, Jesus told us that heaven and earth will pass away but His Word will NEVER pass away. The Word of God is an abiding Word that will never fade away. Why is it then that professing Christians in modern western culture, and especially here in America, seem to want to do all they can to cast doubt on God’s Word and to ignore it, to replace it, to judge it, and to reduce it to the word of mere unsophisticated, ancient men whose ways are outdated and should be abandoned for more modern, enlightened customs and beliefs? The answer is simple: there is neither love nor fear of God in his or her heart. They are still in their sin. Unbelief is the dominant force in their thoughts.

Jesus believed that the Scriptures were the key to understanding and avoiding error, the same as the Psalmist did. (Matt. 22:29) He accused the Jews of erring because they did not understand the Scripture. In other words, the Scripture is right in all it teaches and if you would understand Scripture, you would avoid error. The key to avoiding being wrong about these concepts is situated in understanding Scripture because Scripture is right about them. Jesus said that the Scriptures impart eternal life. This is exactly what Solomon echoed in Proverbs repeatedly and the Psalmist in reference to the power of the commandment to impart life. Jesus also says that the Scripture cannot be broken. (Jn. 10:35) The Scriptures are indestructible according to Jesus. If one looks at what Jesus calls the Word of God and what He calls the Scripture, they are synonymous. Why would a follower of Jesus claim that the Word of God, or the Scripture, is not binding on their life? Obviously if we look at Jesus’ use of Scripture and the Word of God throughout the gospels, it is clear that His view of the Scripture is that it is the Word of God and that it most certainly is authoritative and binding upon His followers.

We now come back to the view that the Scriptures have a sanctifying effect on the Christian. Jesus Himself said, Sanctify them in truth; your word is truth. (Jn. 17:17) Jesus also said to the disciples that they are clean because of the Word, which I have spoken to you. (Jn. 15:3) Here we have the truth of God interchangeably used with the Word of God. Additionally, the Scriptures are the Word of God. God’s word is God’s truth. Therefore, Scripture is God’s truth. The Scriptures, the Word of God, and Truth are all used synonymously. To deny Scripture is to deny God’s truth. To say that Scripture is not authoritative or binding is to say that God’s truth is not authoritative or binding. To claim that Scripture is not God’s Word is to deny that Scripture is God’s truth. To deny that Scripture is God’s Word is to contradict Jesus’ claim that Scripture is the Word of God.

Paul, writing to the Ephesian Christians tells us that Christ has sanctified the Church, having cleansed her by the washing of the water with the word. (Eph. 5:26) From the numerous references to the Scripture cleansing us, helping us to avoid sin, purifying us, keeping our way clean, sanctifying us, it seems we have more than enough evidence to conclude that the Bible is an instrument by which God sanctifies His chosen people.

Paul, in his letter to the younger Timothy writes, You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:14-17) Paul is not requesting that Timothy do this, he is commanding him to do these things. The sacred writings, Holy Scripture, the Word of God, the Truth, is able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation through faith. Scripture is the source of salvation because it is in Scripture that we have preserved to us, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then Paul argues that all Scripture is God-breathed, the product of God, and as such, it does a wonderful work in our lives. Paul did not qualify this statement because there was no need. Obviously Timothy understood what Paul was saying. The Scriptures are the standard by which we are taught, reproved, corrected, and trained in righteousness. Only training in Scripture and by Scripture can lead to a man that is a “man of God, adequate, equipped for every good work. The word adequate here means qualified. In other words, it is divine Scripture that guides and equips us to be godly men who are qualified to engage in “every” good work. If it is a “good work” as defined by God, only Scripture can equip us to be qualified to perform it. Paul had the highest view of Scripture. Did Paul think that other NT writings were Scripture? According to 1 Tim. 5:18, he did. In that text Paul quotes Luke 10:7 and Deut. 25:4 both as Scripture. Hence, Paul viewed Luke on par with Moses. Being Scripture, they are equally viewed as the Word of God. After all, Paul is quoting them in the context of authority.

Peter tells us that no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter. 1:19) We should take care not to call the Word of God the word of men. It is an act of blasphemy to lower the divine Word in such a manner. Then again, in 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter issues an ominous warning: “and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” Two very important points can be easily observed in this text. First, Paul’s writings were already understood as on equal footing with the rest of the Scriptures, the Word of God, divine Truth. Second, people that twist the things that Paul writes do so to their own destruction. Such would not be possible unless what Paul wrote was authoritative and binding on the conscience.

Every system has for it’s final authority, a standard that is located within the system. For example, if someone claims that empiricism is the standard by which all truth claims are justified, then that claim itself cannot be subjected to an external source without proving itself false. This is exactly the same with Christianity. If we appeal to something else outside of Scripture to argue for it's final authority, then that thing, be it empiricism, or rationalism, or existentialism, or whatever, now replaces Scripture as the arbiter of truth. The problem, in the end, with every other non-Christian view is that they all reduce to irrationalism. They move from claims to mystery to irrationalism while Christianity moves from claims to mystery to the self-contained ontological triune God revealed in Scripture.

Opponents of Biblical Christianity seem to want to read a text that says the Bible is the self-attesting, final authority for faith and practice before they will accept it as such. Such a demand is irrational and displays a profound ignorance. Not a single author of the NT was alive to witness the collection of all the other author’s writings together at one time in one place. The approach we take then is an a posteriori approach examining each epistle one by one to see if it presents itself as an authoritative expression of the tradition and revelation that began with Jesus Christ. When we take that approach, we see in every single epistle, the marks of authority, commands, authoritative instructions, and the expectation on the part of the author that his audience will respect and obey his letter.

My friend has worn the word rational out to be frank with my readers. In order for something to be accepted as binding, he says that it must be considered rational to him. But why can’t each man make the same claim? And if they can, does it not follow that each man can do what is right in his own eyes, based on what he thinks is rational? If that is the situation, how can my friend condemn a God that judges the 16 year-old unregenerate men that die rejecting Christ? It is perfectly rational to me that God can do exactly that. And if my reason is really what determines what is binding and true and reasonable, then what basis does my opponent have for contending with me? The fact is if we reject the objective authority of Biblical revelation in Scripture as our final standard, the only alternative is a radical subjectivism where each man, based on what is rational to him, decides what beliefs are justifiable, and what behaviors should be praised and those that should be avoided. In fact, the summum bonum itself becomes a moving target based on the whims and impulses of billions of men.

There is so much more that could be said but space and time dictate that this will have to do for now. Suffice it to say that no man truly understand the true nature of Scripture, or the gospel, unless God opens His eyes to it's wondrous truth.  We do not arrive at a proper understanding of Scripture by historical evidence, empirical demonstrations, or rational argumentation. We can only rightly assess Scripture when our hearts and minds have been captured by the divine, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Remember, Jesus said the reason they do not believe is because it has not been granted to them to believe. No one comes to a right understanding of Scripture unless it has been granted to them by the Father. (Jn. 6:65) Jesus said, But you do not believe because you are not my sheep. The casual relationship between being sheep and believing and not being sheep and not believing is impossible to miss.

A Presuppositional Defense of Scripture - Part 4 of ???

As a reminder, the question we are asking in this series of articles is this: “Is the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, True?” Some say that it is. Others say that it is not. Still others simply say they do not know. There are some who say that some of it is and some of it is not. Finally, there is the skeptic that says we simply cannot know. Traditionally, Christians have attempted to answer this question using empirical and historical evidence along with rational argumentation. In His book, “When Skeptics Ask,” Norman Geisler outlines his argument for the Bible as follows:

God Exists.
The New Testament is a historically reliable document.
Miracles are possible.
Miracles confirm Jesus’ claim to be God.
Whatever God teaches is true.
Jesus, who is God, taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

As you can see, one has to prove a lot, in Geisler’s method, if one is to prove that the Bible is in fact the Word of God. The skeptic will have to concede that God exists, that the NT is historically reliable, that miracles are possible, that miracles confirm Jesus’ claim to be God, and that God does not lie, and finally, that Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God. And these are the sorts of things that the skeptic is certainly unwilling to accept. Now, I am not saying these arguments are bad arguments in and of themselves. I believe every one of them. That is not the problem with Dr. Geisler’s method. The problem is that Dr. Geisler makes the mistaken assumption, as do all classical apologists as far as I can tell, that the manner in which the skeptic justifies beliefs is identical to that of the Christian. This is, after all, a rational argument designed to appeal to rationalist justification for accepting beliefs or claims to knowledge. It seems that Dr. Geisler’s argument is constructed in a manner that is precisely designed to meet the unbelieving criteria of the skeptic. The skeptic replies, “prove it” to each one of these propositions. And when the skeptic says, “prove it,” she has some very strict criteria for what qualifies as proof.

                In order to illustrate why this argument is insufficient at the outset, we need to look no further than the claim that miracles are possible. In the mind of the skeptic, miracles are not possible. The argument that miracles are possible most assuredly means that the skeptic is not holding to a skeptical worldview and that would mean she isn’t a skeptic at all. If it is true that we must show that miracles are possible before we can show that the Bible is the Word of God, then we must examine the argument for the possibility of miracles.          

In contradistinction to this way of answering the question, the presuppositional approach would object to the very ground for the skeptics challenge from the start. In order for the skeptic to mount a challenge against the claims of Christian theism, to include her claims about the Bible, she must demonstrate that her skepticism can offer the necessary preconditions to make the human experience intelligible. She must be able to demonstrate that her skepticism offers genuine, true knowledge. But if the Christian can show that her skepticism reduces to absurdity, he has effectively eliminated her challenge to the Christian claim by showing her methods to be foolish and implausible. In this case, we don’t even get to the question before us. The skeptic is eliminated before she can launch her derisible assault against Scripture. For the younger generation familiar with levels in video games, you know very well you must pass level one to advance to level two. The skeptic must pass level one, which is the Christian’s criticism of the skeptics own basic presuppositions. The Christian need not worry, because when this is done correctly, no non-Christian can effectively get pass level one.

                The presuppositional defense of Scripture begins with Christian theism’s understanding of the nature of God’s sovereignty. This is no piece-meal, building block approach where we first demonstrate that God exists and then step by step seek to conclude that Scripture is the Word of God. Van Til comments on Warfield’s view on Sovereignty and Scripture,

For him the classical doctrine of the infallible inspiration of Scripture was involved in the doctrine of divine sovereignty. God could not be sovereign in his disposition of rational human beings if he were not also sovereign in his revelation of himself to them. If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge.^[1]

Christian theism, without reservation, affirms the doctrine of absolute divine sovereignty. Christian theism affirms that Scripture is God’s special revelation to those whom He has called unto Himself. Who would argue that God could not or would not be sovereignly and intimately involved in His own self-disclosure? Is it reasonable to accept the theory that God was either unable or unwilling to provide an adequately well-defined and sufficient revelation of Himself to humanity in the form of His Word? Such a preposterous scheme would mean the demise of anything remotely resembling Christian theism.

The transcendental argument for God, which shows Christian theism to be true because only it provides the necessary preconditions to make the human experience intelligible, is at the heartbeat of this question. If Christian theism is in fact true, then all that it teaches is true as well. Notice, I did not say all that proponents of Christian theism claim it teaches is true. If Christian theism is true, and Christian theism claims that the Bible is the Word of God, then it must follow that the Bible is the Word of God.

            I will end this post at the place where our answer to the question, “Is The Bible the Word of God?” must begin. Greg Bahnsen liked to structure the argument in the form of a disjunctive. Either A or ~A. Either Christian theism or not Christian theism.

A v ~A

~~A

∴ A

The argument seeks to show that if Christian theism is not the case, then human intelligence is not the case. But human intelligence is the case. Therefore Christian theism is not not the case. In other words, because human intelligence is the case, Christian theism must be the case. Why? Because only Christian theism provides the conditions necessary for human intelligence. There is no other view for the Christian to hold. The necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience is the Christian worldview. All other views reduce to absurdity. Hence, the Christian worldview contends that since God is the author of all reality and of all knowledge, His Word serves as the final reference point for what qualifies as true knowledge and what does not! It is impossible to conclude that the Bible is the Word of God unless we begin with the view that Bible as the Word of God. I should say it is impossible if we want to be consistent in how we reason. We will pick up on this theme in my next post, which should conclude this mini-series nicely.

---

^[1] Cornelius Van Til and Eric H. Sigward, The Articles of Cornelius Van Til, Electronic ed. (Labels Army Company: New York, 1997).