The Disagreement between Classical & Covenantal Apologetics

The non-Christian worldview, in all its forms, affirms that experience can be accounted for along autonomous lines. In back of this statement is the presupposition that human beings, apart from God, can examine a set of brute facts from the standpoint of neutrality and arrive at the truth regarding the state of affairs that has obtained in the world. Classical apologetics, with its full endorsement of natural theology and Aquinas’ second way, wholeheartedly agree with the statement above along with the underlying presuppositions. Covenantal apologetics seeks to show that only Christian theism provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of experience. Human autonomy is a myth. Brute facts do not exist. Instead, only interpretations of facts exist where finite man is concerned. Like human autonomy, neutrality in any part of the human person, is also a myth. Man does not approach life as a blank slate seeking to fill himself with truth. Scripture testifies against such attitudes from beginning to end.

In the Q&A section of the SES debate between Jason Lisle, Richard Howe, and Scott Oliphint, Richard Howe was asked to comment on the difference between conceptual and ontological necessity in Van Til’s TAG. Van Til’s TAG is his Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. I was impressed with the question. I understand what the student was asking. Hence, I waited with baited breath for Howe to interact with this extremely powerful argument. However, much to my chagrin, Howe ignored the question and went off on some other tangent. This lends support to my thesis that Howe has not bothered to interact with Van Til enough to form an educated and concise analysis of presuppositionalism at all. I wish he would stop refuting, what, in my humble opinion, he does not really understand.

When Christian apologists agree that non-Christian worldviews can account for experience apart from God, they unwittingly adopt non-Christian thinking. Since Christian theism stands or falls as a unit, this practice, at a minimum, could result in some very embarrassing encounters in evangelism. At the very least, it reflects poorly constructed argumentation, lacking consistency with sound theology. What is worse is that Christian apologetics must be guided by Christian ethics and the Christian ethic demands that Christians remain faithful to the truth. Therefore, inconsistency in our apologetic method runs afoul of our obligation to remain faithful to biblical truth. Moreover, depending on our motives for this inconsistency, we could rightly be accused of compromising the truth. This occurs when we formulate apologetic method in order to maintain respectability from the unbeliever. We desire to provide an answer that is either not so offensive or one that comports with their criteria for justification of beliefs.

Covenantal apologetics argues from the start that argumentation itself, is impossible apart from God. The conditions necessary to make argumentation possible are what they are only because the state of affairs that has obtained is what Scripture says it is. This is where covenantal and classical apologetics differ greatly. And this is the concept that never made its way into the discussion at the SES conference.

Covenantal apologetics refuses to surrender the criteria of justification for belief to the demands of the unregenerate. The fact is that there is a radical difference between unbelieving criteria for justification of belief, and believing criteria for justification of belief. Hence, what is necessary to qualify as knowledge in the non-Christian worldview is radically different from what is necessary to qualify as knowledge in the Christian worldview. Classical apologetics inherently fails to make this basic distinction, and this leads to unnecessary confusion and inconsistency in the field of Christian apologetics.

In summary then, Richard Howe’s inference that use of human language justifies granting to the unbeliever a natural born neutrality when it comes to such things as evidence, criteria, and justification is just plain wrong. Neutrality is a myth. The state of affairs that has obtained is such that all men, being created in the image of God, are born with an innate and clear knowledge of the Creator. This knowledge is so perspicuous that Paul informs us in Romans one that all unbelievers are without an apologetic for their non-Christian worldview. They are without excuse. Unbelief is indefensible according to Scripture. Yet, it seems to me that classical apologetics legitimizes the unbelieving apologetic to a very large degree by surrendering ground where it should not. At a minimum, classical apologetics seems far too sympathetic with the Satanic question: does God exist? It is not a fair nor reasonable question. In fact, it is a question that is thoroughly wicked from end to end. Not only is it a wicked question where morality is concerned, it is a profoundly irrational question. Christians used to be shocked by such foolish speculations. How dare the creature ask such audaciously arrogant questions like this one! But today, we extend respectability to such an inquiry. It is a virtue of the enlightened mind, after all, to ask critical questions, to give oneself to critical reflection. Indeed, the intellectual endeavors of human speculation are boundless to listen to some even in the Christian camp.

For Richard Howe to presume that the rules of human language presuppose neutrality in not only what those rules are, but also, how those rules are employed, is in my opinion, unjustifiable. The fact is that the rules for human language are absolutely unintelligible absent Christian theism. To argue that our use of those rules justifies the neutral employment of logic and evidence is simply quite a fallacious argument and it demonstrates that Howe simply misses the point of covenantal apologetics. The experience of language, logic, and evidence only makes sense in Christian theism. Every other attempt to explain these phenomena falls short because every other non-Christian worldview collapses in on itself when it is subjected to internal critique.

Man knows God exists. God has made certain of it. Therefore, I do not need to prove to anyone that God exists. When I accept the claim that a person does not know if God exists or does not believe that God exists, I am rejecting what God says about that person’s knowledge of Himself. This is neither right nor safe and it is not in keeping with biblical apologetics. All men pervert the revelation of God they have been given, suppressing the knowledge of God within and around them. Absent the work of grace on the heart, by the person of the Holy Spirit, man will always approach the subject of God from the position of an affirmed and hostile antagonist. Unregenerate man is a God hater by nature. This is the basic theological commitment of covenantal apologetics. Hence, it is wildly antithetical to the classical notion that unregenerate men actually are not sure if God exists. Moreover, these men are capable of approaching the question of God in a neutral fashion. Furthermore, these men can be persuaded that God exists if given the right evidence in just the right way. From there, they may be convinced to accept the rest of the teachings of Christian theism and decide to follow Christ. The disparity between these two schools is indeed overwhelming.

The Faith We Defend

In his book, Covenantal Apologetics, Scott Oliphint lists what he calls the ten tenets for defending the faith. The objective of this post is discuss the first tenet: “The faith that we are defending must begin with, and necessarily include, the triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – who, as God, condescends to create and to redeem.” [Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics, 55]

Christian apologetics cannot get underway unless the apologist understands the nature of his enterprise, which is the defense of the revelation of God in Scripture. Christian apologetics has no interest in proclaiming and defending some theory of general theism. Far too often, the apologetic discussion fails to make progress because we have not properly defined precisely what it is we are defending. We must do a much better job proclaiming and defending the biblically revealed God as opposed to one of the many false conceptions or versions of God that exists in the world today. Unregenerate men have constructed more versions of God than one could possibly know. It is only by knowing the true God that the Christian apologist can proclaim and defend Him.

This concept points us up to the fact that Christian apologetics is not apologetics at all unless it has a theological foundation. In order for us to understand the God that we endeavor to proclaim and defend, we must study theology. Moreover, a study of theology requires some familiarity with exegetical process. In addition, exegetical process rests upon certain hermeneutical presuppositions. Just in case you were wondering, yes, these processes and presuppositions also rest upon theological foundations. The entire enterprise takes on a significantly spherical shape. Not to fear, every epistemological model ever developed in the history of humanity has been and will always be spherical in nature. This is one characteristic of epistemology we are not obligated to secure even if we do wish to illustrate how and why it is so.

What Oliphint is not saying is that every apologetic encounter must involve a theological discussion of the trinity. “Rather, we are saying that we must never assume that we are defending anything but what God himself, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has accomplished in creation and redemption.” [Ibid. 48-49] Two things emerge in this statement: Christian apologetics begins with an understanding of the nature and the acts of God. What we see in many apologetic systems at best is an imbalanced approach stressing one more than the other or even ignoring one altogether. However, you cannot overemphasize one without detriment to the other. If you overstress the love of God you will surely struggle with theodicy when the objection is raised. In addition, if you focus all your time on the resurrection of Christ, you will struggle when the objection of open theism presents itself. Christian theism comes to us in a complete package, not in bits and pieces put together as theologians and apologists react to attacks and challenges over time. Christian theism, while containing a biblical philosophy is not philosophy per se.

The Philosopher has created systems in search of truth that are in large degree modifications due their successive failure, over time, to deliver on their promise for knowledge. The evolution of philosophy will never end because it is the unregenerate quest to discover truth, to know, and live life apart from the Creator. Secular philosophy is the fruitless evolution of man’s quest for knowledge apart from God. At the end of each theory is the inevitable agnostic conclusion regarding why things are the way they are. The answer is simply that the philosopher does not know. In secular philosophy, the true quest for knowledge ends in mystery, and is as unsatisfying as it is empty. For Christian theism the case is quite the contrary. Moreover, when taken as a whole, as it is revealed in Scripture, Christian theism provides the only satisfying answer to man’s most basic questions. That answer inescapably begins, and ends with God and God’s acts in redemptive history.

Hence, all the websites, books, and even degree programs allocated to a philosophical methodology in Christian apologetics have worked to confuse and obfuscate the apologetic vocation far more than they have facilitated in making the task unpretentious. Does this mean we ignore the study of philosophy? I don’t think that is the right answer. I think it is helpful to understand how these systems are constructed. That understanding proves encouraging to the believing because we can clearly see the epistemological failures one after another. However, I do believe there is a balance to such an approach and one has to use wisdom, spending their time wisely in such endeavors. Believers should study the basics of secular philosophy. It is important to be able to speak their language and understand how they think. However, as with anything there is the danger that we allow ourselves to become so obsessed with secular philosophy that we ignore other, more important subjects, such as the biblical languages. There is also the danger of chasing every unbelieving rabbit that pops its head out of the hole and that is simply not in keeping with godly wisdom. In fact, that behavior is due more to the fact that some men simply turn the intellectual pursuit into idolatry while others turn an anti-intellectual bent into idolatry.

I think the point that Oliphint is getting at in his tenets is that Christian theism rises or falls as a unit. By its very nature, like God, it cannot come in bits and pieces. In similar fashion, Christian theology does not come in pieces either. The parts make up the whole and without the whole the parts would be unintelligible. Hence, a Christian apologetic, built upon the diverse and unified system of Christian truth must itself employ a methodology that faithfully expresses the unity and diversity observed in the divine revelation of the one true God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.