Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him.
Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth.
Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
Psalm 127:3-5 (NIV)

For directions to our new meeting place, you can follow this link to google maps. We hope to see you on Sunday, God Bless!

Introduction

Since the time of the Enlightenment, the role of human reason has become paramount in Western thinking. Though initially based on the out-workings of a thousand years of Christian presuppositions, modern man discovered that reason had given him significant power over the material universe. Reason, gave birth to Science and Technology, the twin demigods of autonomous man. Science and Technology, gave man the illusion that he could exist without reference to the supernatural, especially a supernatural God. As the boundaries of human knowledge expanded, more and more of human life could be safely categorized into the safe, materialistic constructs of 19th century rationalism. If not dead, at least, to modern man, God was no longer relevant.

The response of the Church to the devastating influence of scientific materialism was three fold. Some Christians simply capitulated, in the form of theological liberalism (wherein the Church says nothing to modern man, that he is not already saying to himself). Others, found solace in theological irrelevance, as the fundamentalists retreated from every area of life except the personal and subjective aspects of pietistic Christianity. Finally, broad evangelicalism gave in to compromise and acculturation, retaining a semblance of theological orthodoxy, but adopting materialist categories while slowly adapting the faith to prevailing norms.

As a result, the modern Christian finds himself under constant, subtle pressure to conform to humanistic and materialistic standards. In attempting to defend the historic Christian faith, much of the Church has implicitly borrowed philosophical categories from the humanists, and then watched in horror as the humanist captured the universities, seminaries, media, politics, education and culture. Even such stalwart defenders of the faith as B. B. Warfield, compromised on evolution, textual criticism and apologetics simply because he borrowed the thought forms of logical positivism so prevalent in his day. Warfield lost Princeton, the Presbyterians lost their church, and America entered into a theological dark age.

A resurgent Christian faith must return to basics to understand where we went wrong, and why, before something new can be built. There is a time for planting, and a time for reaping, but also a time to break up the soil. One significant philosophical failure that caused the Christian faith to lose its power and effectiveness was a sub-Biblical view of human reason and apologetics. This brief essay is an introduction to the fundamental approach of how the consistent Christian worldview is to be applied in one of the most basic areas, defending the faith against the attacks of her adversaries.

The Role of Apologetics

The term “apologetics” comes from a compound Greek word made up from “apo” meaning for and “logos” meaning “a word.” It thus literally means “a word for” and in Koine Greek was a legal term referring to a formal, courtroom speech given in defense of something 1. Over time, it came to have a specific contextual meaning within the Christian community. In the early Church, apologetics concerned itself with showing the pagan Roman Empire that Christians did not eat babies rescued from exposure (why else would people want to save unwanted children?), drink blood during communion, or indulge in sexual orgies during the Love Feast. Essentially, the task of apologetics was to defend the Church against the attacks of her adversaries.

As time, and the accusations against Christianity changed, the role and even the purpose of apologetics changed as well. In both the early and medieval church, apologetics was synthesized with Greek philosophy with Plato being said to be “God’s Moses to the Greeks.8″ The influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity cannot be over-estimated. In attempting to deal with a radical worldview opposed to Biblical presuppositions, there has always been a tendency within the Church to adjust herself to the current “zeitgeist” of the age. Hence some modern writers insist that apologetics is the systematic working out and presentation of intellectual, scientific and philosophical arguments for the credibility of the Christian faith.2″ They thus already have conceded considerable ground to the enemy, for they have chosen “credibility” as the goal. Apologetics thus is denigrated to a plea for “equal time” in the market place of ideas with the assumption that a neutral, objective audience will carefully and impartially weigh the evidence and reason to the “correct” conclusion regarding Jesus Christ.

For others, apologetics is almost synonymous with Christian philosophy3. And again, the methodology, terminology, goals and limitations of godless philosophy are borrowed, “integrated” into Christianity, and the faith compromised. For some the role of reason is paramount4 while for others it is an affront to faith.5 For some apologetics must concern itself purely with philosophy and philosophical issues, while for others it is simply a sub-division of theology.6 In modern times, those in the liberal and neo-orthodox camps as represented by Barth, Brunner, Bultman and Tillich have abandoned any systematic defense of the faith since they have already given up on the faith itself!9

Apologetics and Christian Philosophy

In order to avoid confusion, apologetics and philosophy can and must be differentiated. In medieval thought, when theology was still the queen of the sciences, apologetics was that branch of theology concerned with defending the faith while philosophy was concerned with the development of a consistent Christian world view10, albeit it a worldview tainted by Greek philosophy. Today apologetics and philosophy often overlap because theology has been dethroned and philosophy has assumed the burden for providing ultimate meaning, a burden she does not bear easily or successfully. Therefore, the major intellectual attacks come from the philosophical implications of materialism and humanism.

A truly Christian philosophy, especially in the area of epistemology (how we know what we know) is necessary to provide an essential foundation for the apologist’s work. The apologist cannot function unless he understands and operates within a consistent, Biblical worldview. Thus in this sense, Christian philosophy should provide the tools and methodology for apologetics, while the apologist uses the tools to defend the faith.

Yet, Christian philosophy itself can begin only after the theologian has done his work, exegeting the Scriptures and arriving at conclusions regarding the over-arching truths of the Bible. It can be argued that the tools the theologian uses are the ones the philosophers gives him; e.g., a theory of knowledge, linguistic analysis, etc., 11. However, without the theologian, the philosopher has no way to verify his theories of knowledge. The philosopher begins his work with certain assumptions, assumptions that cannot stand independently of the existence and attributes of the Living God. Hence, what presuppositions does the philosopher brings to bear on any question, where do those presuppositions come from, and what makes them valid? What is knowledge? Is true communication possible? If so, how so?

The consistent Biblical theologian must answer that we know, because God knows. God is triune, and has eternal fellowship within the members of the Godhead. Thus, there is real communication possible and real content to be communicated, because of the unchanging nature of God Himself. God has revealed Himself through Scripture, hence knowledge, relationships and communications are all possible because of the very nature of God12. Without the theologian’s work, the philosopher has no intellectual foundation on which to build and extrapolate from. This argument is indicative of the fundamental problem facing Christian apologetics. Where do we begin? What assumptions are we making regardless of which side we choose?

It can be argued, that the philosopher’s main task, is to take the eternal, unchanging principles of God’s infallible and authoritative word and apply them to form a consistent, Biblical world view. He must show how the Scriptures apply in every area of human endeavor such as art, science, language, culture, etc.13 Instead, modern Christian philosophy is often conspicuous by its absence. It offers little except the warmed over dregs of the latest, discarded, humanist fad. “Phileo Sophia,” the love of wisdom, has become the love of man’s wisdom, no matter how depraved, bankrupt or destructive to the Faith.

The Task of Apologetics:

Apologetics must defend as true, what the theologian reveals from Scripture.14 The Apostle Peter sates that we must give a “word for” the hope that is within us. In context, that hope was the resurrection. Greek philosophy, and the Gnostic doctrines that grew from it, saw an irreconcilable difference between flesh and spirit. God was spirit, and therefore anything spiritual was considered superior. Humans left this material world behind to become spiritual beings (and if good enough, enjoyed the spiritual pleasures of the Elysian Fields).

Christianity on the other hand taught that Christ had risen from the dead, a resurrection that in Greek thought was both unnecessary and counter-productive (cf. Acts 17:32). Peter’s call then is to do more than simply defend the resurrection, but also the very reasons why the resurrection was important. Hence, it required an attack on the basic working presuppositions of the pagan worldview. The Greek concept of Spirit Vs. Matter was simply wrong, and the Christian is required to confront it. Peter is not calling for Christians to synthesize Greek philosophy with Biblical theology, instead, at rock bottom, he demands that we face a demonic world view, and challenge it at it’s most basic presuppositional level. The Greek view was wrong, dead wrong, and people who accepted it were going to go to hell for believing it.

Apologetics therefore has both a negative and positive aspect. The positive aspect is that Christianity is true, because it is true to reality.15 Christian presuppositions, and only Christian presuppositions answer the fundamental human questions about existence, future, personality, etc. Those who refuse to accept and acknowledge the truthfulness of Christianity are living in a self conscious philosophy of contradiction and inconsistencies. No matter however they try, their world view must inevitably lead to slavery, tyranny and death.16 Thus the Christian message can be proclaimed with boldness, confidence and excitement. Christians are the only people with the truth about the essential nature of the universe.

The negative aspect of apologetics is found in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself against the knowledge of God and we take captive every thought in order to make it obedient to Christ…” The pagan worldview is futile and foolish (Rms 1:21ff). The Christian gospel demands exclusivity. Either Christ is right, or He was wrong. No man comes unto the Father but by Him. Therefore, the apologist must blow away the pagan’s philosophical smoke screen and reveal the terrible consequences of his self-conscious denial of the God of Scripture.

This negative work is not done to win points in some academic debate, nor is it to puff up the Christian as the expense of others (1 Cor 8:1ff), nor is it just to gain some ground in the market place of ideas. Instead, the destructive work is an essential part of a truly Christian demonstration of love (Jer 1:10). There is a time for building up, and a time for tearing down. A man must first acknowledge that he is lost, before he can be saved. The unregenerate man must be shown the consequences of his sin and the folly of his godless lifestyle. The apologist’s task is to strip the unregenerate man of his metaphysical fig leaves, so that God might re-clothe him with new linen (Rev. 3:18).

Thus rather than just defending the faith against unjust accusations, Biblical apologetics must go on the offensive, turning the tables on the unregenerate man’s world view. The apologist must use the truth as a weapon, to pierce the human heart. The best defense is a good offense.

Therefore, Christian apologetics must do more than simply wait for the unregenerate man to attack whenever and wherever he pleases. Our commission from the Lord Jesus Christ is to attack the very gates of hell and plunder it’s contents (Matt 16:18). How sad, and how telling, that in this faithless age such a wonderful promise of victory is turned into a promise of defeat? Most Christians when (or if) they read these verses, incredibly turn the promise around to mean that Satan will never successfully conquer Christ’s church. But gates don’t attack anything! Gates defend! The Church is not the one on the defensive here, but Hell! The Christian gospel is so powerful, so confident, so strong and guaranteed of success that even the citadel of Satan himself cannot stand against her!

Sadly, in the last one hundred years, Christians have a adopted a defeatist mentality regarding history, science, philosophy and culture, surrendering them often to the enemy without firing a single shot.17 From a nation with an almost unanimous consensus of Christian thought in 1640, we have become a polyglot society of New Age Humanists, secular materialists, cultists, eastern religions and out right God-haters. Humanists have taken control of the education system that Christians built, while barring Christianity from the classroom. Yet, Biblically speaking, it is the Church’s task to “plunder the strong man” who has already been bound by King Jesus by His victory over Satan on the cross (Matt 12:29).

Apologetics ought to be a razor sharp sword, slashing and piercing the opposing viewpoints of what is falsely called knowledge. Thus rather than simply being on the defensive, apologetics is supposed to turn the tables on the pagan world view and go on the offensive, taking captive every thought for Christ.

Thus, apologetics defends the Christian gospel by aggressive attacks on the pagan world view while answering the objections and false accusations of the enemy. One of the central issues therefore concerns the tools and methods used to do so. The weapons chosen reveal much about the Biblical consistency of the underlying theology. As in the other areas, the Church has adopted a variety of approaches for giving an answer for “the hope that is in us” with significantly different results. Perhaps the Church has been defeated so thoroughly in time, because the apologist, the theologian and the Christian philosopher have failed so dismally in their task.

Endnotes
1. Wallace, Ronald., Apologetics, New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J.D., Douglas, editor, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1974, pg. 56
2. Ramm, Bernard, Apologetics, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, Evererett Harrison, Editor, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1975, pg. 55
3. Hoover, A. J., Apologetics, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Waler A. Elwell, editor, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1989, pg. 70
4. Sproul, R.C., Classical Apologetics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1984, pg. 212
5. Luther Martin, Theology of the Reformers, Timothy George
6. Lewis, Gordon R., Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims, Moody Press, Chicago, 1976, pg 17
7. Pinnock, C. H., Apologetics, New Dictionary of theology, Sinclair B. Ferguson, editor, Invervarsity Press, Downers Grove, 1988, pg 36
8. Bahnsen, Greg L., Socrates on Christ, The Reformation of Christian Apologetics, Foundations of Christian Scholarship, Gary North, editor, Ross House Books, Vallectir, CA. 1979, pg 223
9. ob. Cite. Lewis, pg. 197
10. Bourland, Gense, An Introduction to Christian Apolgetics, Institute for Biblical Studies, 1975, pg. 7
11. ibid. pg. 9
12. Rush, Rousas, J., By What Standard, Thoburn Press, Tyler Texas, 1983, pg. 158
13. Schaeffer, Francis, Escape from Reason, IVP, London, 1973, pg. 37
14. op. Cite. Bourland, pg. 12
15. Schaeffer, Francis, How Should We then Live? Fleming H,. Revell Company, New Jersey, 1976, pg. 127
16. ibid. pg. 253
17. Rookmajer, H. R., Modern Art and the Death of Culture, IVP, London, 1973, pg. 43

Approaches to Apologetics

There are three common ways that the task of apologetics has been approached by various groups of the Christian church in history. The first is the semi-pelagian appeal to reason of the Roman Catholic church1. The second is the evidentialist apologetic of contemporary evangelicalism (sometimes called the classical or traditional) which is also dependent upon reason. This view is supported by such contemporary evangelicals such as Clark, Gerstner, Sproul, Carnell et all2. Finally, there is the presuppositionalist approach of certain reformed theologians such as Cornelius Van Til3. In each approach, the view of the unregenerate man determines how the apologetic is presented.

Roman Catholicism early in its history borrowed its basic world view from Greek philosophy. Greek philosophy had provided the basic set of assumptions for the entire “civilized” world of Western culture. When Christianity became respectable (and in fact in order to become respectable) many of the early church fathers borrowed heavily from Aristotle, Plato and Socrates4. Because it began with the unregenerate man’s view of itself, the Roman concept thus saw no real distinction between the regenerate man and the unregenerate man in the area of human reason.

Original righteousness was understood to be something supernatural rather than natural.5 When sin entered the world, the Romanist believes that man lost his supernatural righteousness but not his reason. Human reason is then thought to be the common ground6 between Christian and non-Christian.

This can be clearly seen in the famous theistic proofs of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas assumed that the unregenerate mind could be and would be convinced by appeals to his autonomous reason7. In Roman theology, conversion was a matter of autonomous man weighing the evidence and choosing the alternative he thought best fitted his concept of right8. This position is consistent with Rome’s abandonment of Augustinianism and consequent semi-pelagian view that sin is not an innate part of unregenerate man but rather something he adds to his nature through conscious choice. Grace for the Romanist is something done to one, rather than for one.

However, the Biblical Christian must reject this understanding of the nature of the unregenerate man. Though many evangelical Arminians also tend towards a semi-pelagian view, the Bible is clear that without the light of Christianity, man has neither a correct view of himself nor of God.9 The natural man does not and cannot understand the things of the spirit and therefore interprets reality without an essential part of the equation (1 Corinthians 2:14). Further more, even if he does discover some truth, his unregenerate nature will suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). There can be then no appeal to a supposed neutral ground of human reason because the unregenerate man is incapable of understanding spiritual realities (Ephesians 4:17-18).

Yet, many evangelicals, including some in the Reformed camp, also hold that reason is the key to apologetics and the common ground with the unbeliever. The traditional evidentialist approach attempts to show the unregenerate man that Christianity is credible and should be accepted by him10. But this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reason and its legitimate use. Reason is simply a process of ensuring that a conclusion logically follows from the starting premises. One’s conclusions are either logical or illogical depending upon whether the premises justify the conclusions.11.

But reason in and of itself is inadequate to demonstrate whether the premises themselves are true! The basic premises (or presuppositions) themselves must be arrived at by some other process than reason. Contrary to the philosophy of ancient Greece, there are no neutral axioms, which may be discovered by pure reason alone. One may reason very soundly from improper premises and thus arrive at ridiculous conclusions12. Thus, a given statement may be logical and reasonable, based upon certain premises, but considered impossible and incredible if viewed from the perspective of another set of premises.

For example, if one’s basic premise is that the earth is flat, it is very reasonable to conclude that if sailing due East will cause one will fall off the edge of the Earth. But if one begins from different premises, then such a conclusion is ridiculous and incredible.

Christians and non-Christians share completely different basic assumptions about the nature of the universe. Reason by itself fails to be the common ground between Christians and non-Christians since they must always arrive at different conclusions for they begin from different points.

Some may then argue “is not reason itself as a process neutral since both Christians and non-Christians use it?” Both believer and unbeliever may in fact use the process of sound reasoning, but the issue here is whether it serves as the mythical neutral ground. Reason itself presupposes a consistency and coherency to the universe that is denied by the pagan mind. But we are getting ahead of ourselves; more about this later.

Unlike the older Roman apologists, some evangelicals, (possibly affected by the relativistic spirit of the age), no longer think that one can prove God exists,13 assuming that Kant and Hume have destroyed the theistic proofs once and for all. They appear to be saying that apologetics must try a new tack. It even appears at times as if they are merely pleading for equal time (and equal tenure?) in the market place of ideas.14 Yet, the myth of a neutral, scientific community, impartially weighing the evidence and arriving at a reasonable conclusion is simply not true in regards to the claims of Christ!

Sometimes some apologists seem anxious to show that “we’re not just some ignorant fundamentalists.”15 Apologetics is then presented as necessary because we want to show that we are not like those who simply accept Christianity on blind faith by an appeal to authoritarianism16. Thus if the apologist simply shows that Christianity is not “incredible,” then some think they have accomplished their task.

Credibility Vs Truth

Yet again, this assumption reveals a basic misunderstanding of what credibility is and how it is obtained. Credibility is a sociological phenomenon completely unrelated to truth.17 A thing is credible to the degree to which it fits within the expectations and assumptions of a person at a given point in time.18 Thus the Aristotelian view of the earth being the center of the universe seems incredible to us, but was the dominant scientific theory 500 years ago.

Today the deity of Christ or the supernatural character of the Bible may be incredible to secular humanists, but that says nothing about whether the doctrines are true, but rather how readily they will be accepted and whether they fit into the contemporary zeitgeist. Thus the desire for credibility is fruitless if something is contrary to the presuppositions of the age. One hundred years ago, the idea of germs causing disease or that doctors should wash their hands between patients was simply laughed at and the man who propounded it so ridiculed he died in ignominy and shame. The concept was simply “incredible!” Hence the quest for credibility is a fools errand.

Furthermore, one can “prove” anything by reason as long as the basic premises are accepted. For the pagan, Christianity is just another “logical absurdity” 19 in that it makes sense, if you grant the Christian his premises. But if the premises are not accepted, then the argument, no matter how logical or reasonable will not be accepted either.

Popular apologists such as Josh McDowell place considerable emphasis on the historicity and reliability of the New Testament documents or the arguments from fulfilled prophecy 20. They argue from a “Common Sense” philosophy tinged with 19th century empiricism, i.e. the brute facts are in an of themselves so overwhelmingly convincing that any “reasonable” man must decide in favor of Jesus.21

Yet again, the key word here is “reasonable”. A man finds reasonable that which conforms to his expectations of the nature of reality (or agrees with his basic premises). An unreasonable thing is something which contravenes his basic presuppositions. Thus if his world view is such as to rule out a priori the existence of the supernatural (e.g. Kant) then any supernatural evidence will also be ruled out as being “unreasonable”.

One cannot appeal to a man’s reasonableness without taking his basic presuppositions into consideration. It is interesting to note that “common sense” philosophy is itself the result of a Christianised world view which no longer is the consensus of Western thought. When society held to a Christian consensus, even ungodly men thought within Christian categories and forms. But once that consensus disappeared, then so does the ability to communicate to “reasonable” men.

While popular apologists do say that apologetics in and of themselves will not win anybody to the faith22, it sometimes appears that winning the argument and winning the souls is almost the same thing. The assumption seems to be that the major problem most unbelievers have with the gospel is ignorance and bad teaching.23 “If only pagans could be given all the facts, then they would reason through to the right conclusion.” Thus for some, the major problem today on university campuses is that the truth is being suppressed. However, once people see the truth, then they will change24.

But as worthy as these men are (and as valuable as their collections of evidences are) their approach basically differs little from the Romanist position being semi-pelagian, arminian and evidentalist25. They make human reason the basis of their appeal and by doing so play into the opposition’s camp. An example of the inadequacy of this approach can be seen in E.J. Carnell’s argument why scientists cannot logically reject the possibility of the resurrection out of hand. He argues that there are many exceptions to supposed natural laws because we have not yet discovered all there is to discover about the natural universe. Therefore it is illogical to rule out a priori the resurrection for supposedly violating natural laws. He says, “The Christian thus may scientifically plead the existence of a law, yet unknown and unplotted, which can cover the resurrection of Jesus Christ” 26

But Carnell has thrown the baby out with the bath-water! By trying to appeal to the unregenerate man’s supposed autonomous reason and to force him to admit that Christianity is credible, he ends up placing a supernatural event within the framework of the natural universe! If the supernatural evidence of Christ’s deity is removed by making it a part of the natural world, then Christ is simply creature, not creator.

But it is exactly the supernatural character of the evidence that the unregenerate man will not and cannot abide. He does not want Christ to be God. His very nature stands in rebellion to Christ and all that He is and has done. He would be very happy to place the resurrection within the context of a materialistic and naturalistic universe. One could take such a man right to the garden tomb on the first Easter morning while the angel was rolling away the stone and still not convince him to become a Christian (after all, how many of the Roman guards became believers!). He would simply nod knowingly, make some notes, and prepare his next academic paper (probably entitled, “Some Preliminary Considerations of Post Grave Trauma). The problem facing the unregenerate man and the gospel is not intellectual, but moral. It is not that he can’t believe, but rather he does not want to believe (Romans 3:9ff).

Both the Roman and the traditional evangelical view fail to come to grips with the Biblical evidence of the depraved state of the unregenerate mind. Called in theology the noetic effect the main issues facing the Christian apologist is “just how badly is the mind of the unregenerate man afflicted by sin”?

The Romans and the Rationalists accept two myths concerning the unregenerate man’s mind. The first is the Myth of Reason, i.e., that the unregenerate man can and does reason rightly about God. The second is the Myth of Neutrality, i.e. that a sincere man when confronted with all evidence can and will impartially judge the evidence. These are “myths” because they fail to take seriously the Biblical data concerning the heart and mind of sinful men. The natural Man does and cannot reason properly about God. Rather than being an honest, impartial judge, he is in fact a crooked and perverse one.

End Notes

1. Van Till, Cornelius, Christian Apolgetics, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburb, 1976, pg. 42
2. Sproul, R.C., Classical Apologetics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1984, pg. 220
3. Rushdoony, Rousas, J., By What Standard, Thoburn Press, Tyler Texas, pg. 8
4. Bahnsen, Greg, L., Socrates or Christ in Foundations fo Christan Scholarship, Gary North, editor, Ross House Books, Vallecito, 1976, pg. 196
5. op. cit. Van Till, pg. 149
6. ibid. pg. 42
7. ibid. pg. 43
8. op. cit. Rushdoony, pg. 136
9. op. cit. Van Till, pg. 43
10. McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands A Verdict, Campus Crusade for Christ, San Bernadino, 1972, pg. 235
11. Clark, Gordon H., Logic, The Trinty Foundation, Jefferson Md, 1985, pg. 1
12. ibid. pg. 3
13. Lewis, Gordon R., Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims, Moody Press, Chicago, 1976, pg. 126
14. Schaeffer, Francis, How Should We then Live?, Fleming H. Revell Company, New Jersey, 1976 pg 119
15. ibid. pg. 87
16. ibid. pg. 234
17. Guiness, Oz, The Grave Digger Files, IVP, London, 1986 pg 47
18. ibid. pg. 45
19. Bourland, Gene, Introduction to Christian Apologetics unpublished lecture notes from the Institute for Biblical Studies, Aberystiwth, 1975, pg 10
20. op. cit. McDowell, pg. 32
21. ibid. pg. 57
22. ibid. pg. 73
23. ibid. pg. 84
24. Bright, William, Come Help Change the World, Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappen, NJ, 1970, pg. 198
25. op. cit. Van Till, pg. 58
26. Carnell, E.J., An Introducton to Christian Apologetics, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1978, pg. 257

Presuppositions and Human Reason

The presuppositional approach pioneered by Cornelius Van Til during his tenure at Westminster Seminary, is the only method that consistently deals with the underlying problems of human reason from a Biblical perspective. No fact is intelligible unless understood in relation to other facts 1. Thus there can be no appeal to a brute “factuality” in arguing with the unregenerate because facts can only be understood within the context of a particular world view.2 Each person interprets the world through the filters of his own assumptions and presuppositions concerning the ultimate nature of reality.3

It is the basic underlying assumptions, or presuppositions of the pagan world view that must be challenged, not just the way he reasons from his basic axioms. Both Peter and Paul drove to the heart of the matter regarding the nature of Greek, proto-gnostic speculations about the nature of reality when he placed the resurrection at the center of the Christian gospel. Regenerate and unregenerate share different fundamental presupposition concerning the nature of reality. They cannot reason to the same conclusions because they begin at different starting points, and then have different rules when it comes to validating their reasoning. Thus both interpret “facts” within the context of their respective world views. When the Christian tries to “prove” his case to the unbeliever by an appeal to reason or evidence, the evidence will always be insufficient because autonomous man, beginning from himself, will not and cannot reason to a sovereign God.4

The Christian cannot effectively reason with the non-Christian about God because the unregenerate man is spiritually deaf, dumb and blind. It is not that the presuppositional approach eschews reason5, only that reason, cannot be the common ground because the unregenerate man cannot reason correctly about God. He is constitutionally predisposed to negatively evaluate any evidence he finds. He actively suppresses the truth about God (Rms 1:18). He is by nature, a God hater who does not seek for, nor want the things of God (Rms 3:9ff). Even supposed “moral” pagans fall into this category. They may want the blessings that flow from Christian principles, even while they reject the Christian gospel that makes them possible; e.g., the Pharisees of Jesus day were considered the moral elites of the nation. Yet they hated, feared and eventually conspired to murder Jesus. They refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, because regardless of their supposed morality, at heart, they hated God (Matt 21:41ff).

Even unregenerate men recognize the myth of neutrality of human reason. Robert A. Heinlein, one of the most popular science fiction writers of this century, and no friend to Christianity has said, “Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.”6 In short, man does not use his reason to understand the world, so much as they use their reason to justify whatever opinions they already possess.

Racial prejudice is an excellent example of this, on both sides of the issue. Bigots develop negative orientations about certain ethnic minorities, and no amount of reason will budge them from their hatred. On the other hand, for those who insist that there are and can be no distinction between races, decades of research showing intrinsic differences in IQ scores are simply rejected, because the conclusions do not fit the prejudice. In fact, the very issue of race relations is so polarized, that facts, figures, arguments, etc., are chosen or discarded, depending upon their utility in serving the groups’ ends.

The myth of a supposed neutral science has been glaringly exposed as various food manufacturers subsidize research supporting their products, and attacking others. Modern researchers are often little better than academic prostitutes, selling their studies to the highest bidder. How often does creation science receive even a hearing, let alone an impartial and fair one? Every time the materialists are foolish enough to debate, Christian apologists wipe the floor with them, but the propaganda machine still refuses to acknowledge the weight of the evidence. Huxley is quoted as saying that the evidence for evolution is so weak that it would be rejected out of hand, except that the only alternative is fiat creation, which simply cannot be excepted.7 Interesting, that after a century of Lyll’es uniformitarian presuppositions, catastrophism is making a powerful come back!

Objections!

It has been argued though, that the natural universe is there for all to see and study and that there is no difference between believer and unbeliever saying, “there are two atoms of Hydrogen to one of Oxygen in every molecule of water. ” Isn’t the sky just as blue, the water just as wet, sunshine just as bright for the unregenerate as for the regenerate? Has not modern man, though reasoning from ungodly principles, uncovered many significant secrets of God’s universe and shown that they can and do reason properly?

Though the great scientific revolution of the past may have been pioneered by Christians, most of the significant scientific accomplishments of the past 100 years have been made by those adamantly opposed to a Christian world view. If the natural man’s reason is so perverted, and his reason so tainted, how can he discover so much about God’s universe? Surely there must be some common ground?

First, the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28ff is written deep within the human heart. There is no escaping the fact that we were created to subdue the creation. The problem of course is that we want to do so on our terms rather than God’s. Thus it should not surprise Christians, that even god-haters attempt to subdue the earth. There is such a thing as prevenient grace.

Secondly, while it is true that the unregenerate man sometimes arrives at good conclusions, he can do so, only by being inconsistent with his pagan presuppositons of the nature of the universe.8 For example, though he denies the sovereignty of God and must therefore presume a universe governed by random chance, he lives as if his life still has meaning and purpose. When he fails to do so, his life is usually nasty, brutal and short. Though his presuppositions state that he is only an animal, and therefore controlled by animal instincts, he still passes moral judgments, believes in love rather than lust, seeks self improvement and self actualization, though there are no good reasons for him doing so.

Modern man is modern man only by living inconsistently with his own philosophy. In today’s existential counterculture, the very thought of absolutes is absurd, Yet this same counter culture condemns the murderer, the child molester, the rapist and thief, just as if there really was such a thing as moral absolutes and right and wrong. Schaeffer deftly recognized that the humanist Jean Paul Sartre save away his case as an existentialist (i.e., that there is no right or wrong, just individual choices) when he signed a petition condemning German atrocities during the Spanish civil war.9 The logical and inevitable progression to existentialism is Nilhism, a philosophy of despair and brute power. Thus the two most consistent humanists in history were the Marquis De Sade and Adolph Hitler.

It can therefore be argued, that all progress in the natural sciences in the past 150 years is a direct result of men reasoning illogically from their own premises, assuming the reality of Christian truths that their own researches are designed to prove! It is only by borrowing intellectual capital from the Christian world view that the non-Christian is able to discover anything at all. And once that capital is gone, we should expect the humanist to begin drying up.

For example, modern science, increasingly coming under the sway of eastern existential monism, is rapidly grinding to a halt in the theoretical end as scientists become more consistent with their own presuppositions. While great leaps are being made in applied technology, the theoretical framework underpinning it, is in open disarray. In the book, “The Tao of Physics” the next generation of scientists are urged to consider new, revolutionary ways of seeing reality as the old paradigms break down. Based on Heizenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, modern physics finds that sub atomic particles (called “quarks”) have a disquieting tendency to act the way that the researchers want. Thus rather than finding an objective universe “out there,” which the “neutral” scientist studies, it appears that the very act of studying something may predetermine what the scientist finds!

Thus modern science is in a quandary about where it can go because it appears that their notions about the fundamental nature of the universe is simply, dead wrong. The scientists’ universe no longer fits, the nice safe, categories of 19th century materialistic empiricism. Bankrupt in their own atheism, and unwilling to even consider Biblical authority, modern science is seriously proposing Taoism (pronounced “daoism”) as an alternative way to understand the universe. Yet science and technology are themselves uniquely the result of Christian presuppositions.11

Only in the West, deeply influenced by Christian theism, did science and technology developed. Ancient Roman was a master user of stolen technology but never discovered science. Ancient China discovered gun powder and printing, but never developed a systematic science, and never utilized the inventions they did discover. How did Medieval Europe, considered by many to be inferior to ancient classical civilizations, ever discover so much about the natural world, that their cultural “superiors” managed to miss? The answer lies in their presuppositions about the fundamental nature of the world. Christian Europe believed in a creature/creator distinction, that the Creator was consistent in His character and purposes and that he had tasked the human race with the responsibility to exercise dominion over the world.

Furthermore, this Creator had revealed Himself sufficiently and authoritatively in a book. Therefore studying that book became of paramount importance. Rigorous methods of Bible study were developed to ensure that man properly understood that revelation. This in turn gave Christian Europe the basic tools that could also be used to study the natural world.14 This world view, combined with the mental tools of inductive reasoning, gave the West an advantage over other cultures that had existed for considerably longer periods of time. The universe was not random, chaotic or meaningless. It was supposed to make sense, and godly men ought to study it, and control it because a sovereign God would unlock its secrets.

Contrast the Christian approach with similar developments in China. Taoism prevented the development of a world view of applied technology that could exploit natural resources. In Taoism, health, wealth and security are found, not in trying to change things, but in “going with the flow.”15 Thus the very idea of trying to change, adapt or interfere with the “natural” order is unthinkable. Consider the same problems facing Eastern mysticism as a whole. Both Hinduism and Buddhism posit a world where there is nothing material, all is illusion, nothing is real. Pain, striving, work are all meaningless because reality consists in denying the created world and finding Nirvana by emptying one’s self of everything. Why should science ever develop in such cultures? How could it ever do so?

Yet, India and Japan both export some of the most capable technicians in the world. But to do so, they must live completely inconsistently with their own religious and philosophical presuppositions. They adopt Western thought forms, even while denying the irreconcilable differences between the two.

Thus it is more than ironic, that with the wide spread abandonment of Christianity, made possible by the scientific revolution, scientists at the cutting edge of theoretical physics are contemplating returning to the same philosophy that stagnated science for over two thousand years! “Professing to be wise, they became fools…” (Rms 1:20).

Unregenerate man can reason, but he reasons badly and inconsistently. Only the Christian world view offers consistency, coherency and pragmatic results because it deals with the universe as it really is, not the way that sinful, rebellious men wish it to be.

Unregenerate Man and the Innate Knowledge of God

Finally, reason is unsuitable for common ground with the unbeliever because the Bible says that all men, everywhere, already, innately, know that God exists (Rms 1:20, 2:14, Psa 19:1ff, 14:1ff, etc.,). The Bible itself never offers proofs, evidences, reasons or arguments for the existence of the one true God but rather from the very beginning, simply assumes it (Gen 1:1). The problem is not evidence, but men who suppress the truth because of their wicked hearts (Rms 1:20).

This innate knowledge is not just of a “god” in general, but the Christian God.16 Every fact of creation screams it (Psa 19:1ff). The problem is that unregenerate man suppresses this knowledge because of his wicked heart and sinful nature (Rms 1:18ff). He cannot stand to face the reality that he is not god himself so will go to any lengths to avoid admitting the truth, even as far as worshipping dumb animals (Rms 1:22ff). Thus the use of Christian evidences do not and cannot convince the unregenerate man because he is unable to be convinced apart from a sovereign act of God’s grace ( ).

This is where presuppositionalism becomes the only consistent apologetical method for the Reformed believer. Basic Calvinism states that man does not choose God, but God chooses man (Rms 9:14ff, Jn 15:16). Regeneration must logically precede faith, for without regeneration, the unsaved lacks the ability to understand spiritual realities (1 Cor 2:14). Unless God takes away the scales that blind men’s eyes, they cannot and will not understand the reasons we give for our faith (2 Cor 4:3-6). Therefore, you cannot reason, with unreasonable men. Instead, it is the power of the gospel, in the hands of a sovereign God, that must give sinful men the heart transplant necessary to understand and accept the truth.

End Notes
1. Van Till, Cornelius, Christian Apologetics, Presbyterian and Refomred Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, 1976, pg. 42
2. Ibid. pg 38
3. Holmes, Arthur F., Contours of a World View, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1984, pg 32
4. ob cite, Van Till, pg 51
5. ibid, Van Till, pg 35
6. Heinlein, Robert, A. Time Enough for Love, Double Day and Co., New York, 1977, pg 237
7. Morris Henry and Whitcomb John, The Genesis Flood, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1976, pg 442-443
8. Rushdoony, Rousas, J., By What Standard, Thoburn Press, Tyler Texas, 1983, pg 65
9. Schaeffer, Francis, Escape from Reason, IVP, London, 1973, pg. 37
10. North, Gary, Unholy Spirits, Dominion Press, Ft. Worth, 1086, pg 41ff
11. Rookmaker, H.R>, Modern Art and the Death of Culture, IVP, London, 1973, pg. 42
12. Scott, Kenneth Latourette, A History of Christianity, Volume 1, Harper and Row, New York, 1975, pg. 85
13. Schaeffer, Francis, How Should We Then Live, Fleming H. Revell, New Jersey, 1976, pg. 142
14. ibid, pg 135
15. Tzu, Lao, The Tao De Ching, Harper and Row, New York, 1978, pg 7
16. ob cite, Van Till, pg 58

Apologetics and Spiritual Warfare

In concluding this brief analysis on the inadequacy of human reason in apologetics, there is a third argument that is often over looked. All Biblical Christians will agree that this area is important, but precious little appears to be written about it in academic circles1. This may be because of the tendency among Christians to borrow their philosophical presuppositions from their culture and then re-interpret their theology accordingly. This happened historically both when Romanism was infiltrated by Greek philosophy as well as when Reformation theology was influenced by Enlightenment humanism. Both approaches ultimately fail to provide answers because they do not deal with the universe as it really is; i.e. as it is revealed in the Scriptures.

Though American culture is changing (frighteningly so!), the last 100 years has been marked by a decidedly anti-supernatural bias in both secular and Christian circles. As a result, many Christians have almost been embarrassed to admit their belief in Satan and the demonic. Consequently, apologists then have had little to say about spiritual warfare. Yet to neglect the influence of demonic opposition is to sell our theological birthright for a mess of humanistic porridge. The role of the supernatural is crucial to Biblical apologetics.

The term, “spiritual warfare” is here defined as the influence supernatural forces have on the conduct of human affairs. While this is an intriguing enough topic to warrant its own thesis, time and space here are limited. However it is clear in the Scriptures that there is a realm of conflict that transcends human armies or human thought.

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places…” Ephesians 6:13

It is narrow minded, sub-biblical and dangerous to assume that such warfare consists only of theological debates against liberal academics, or is waged purely in intellectual terms or is experienced only in attitudinal battles such as resisting temptation.2 Daniel’s experience in prayer reveals both the reality and the power of supernatural events in human situations. Daniel had been praying and fasting for three weeks and though God had heard his prayer from the beginning, the angelic messenger sent to answer that prayer was prohibited from accomplishing his task by demonic opposition (Dan 10:12-13). Demonic activity is real, it does have an impact and it certainly affects the apologist.

Though presumptuous to speculate about the nature of this kind of warfare without laying down the exegetical and theological basis, at least it can be noted that the Apostle Paul’s primary concern in Ephesians 6:10ff was neither attitudinal nor philosophical. Furthermore, the weapons he demands be used in this battle are neither intellectual, nor rational; but rather faith, truth, righteousness, the gospel and the Scriptures (Eph 6:14ff).

Reason thus cannot be considered the primary weapon for the apologist because the ultimate nature of the battle is not intellectual, but spiritual. He must take into consideration that the forces opposing the gospel are not merely human, but include the demonic as well.

Though arguable, it may be said that the major work of demons in this age is not to possess human souls. While this may make for entertaining and high grossing (pun intentional) movies, there is precious little said about demonic possession outside of the Gospels and the book of Acts. As the gospel goes forth in the epistles, the emphasis seems to be that demons work primarily to deceive men from understanding the gospel (2 Cor 4:3ff, 2 Tim 4:1, 1 Cor 10:20, 1 Jn 2:26, etc.), The unregenerate are blinded not by poor reasoning, but rather by demonic forces (2 Cor 4:1ff).

Jesus did not cast out demons with a good, sound, argument, but rather by His divine authority as God Incarnate. In the same way, using apologetics to face demonic opposition today, requires more than a high brow, intellectual discussion. What was put into a man by reason, is unlikely to be removed by reason. What was put into a man by a demon, will be removed only by something, or shall we say, Someone, greater (1 Jn 4:4).

Summary

The starting point then for effective apologetics is not the myth of a supposed neutral human reason, or the impartiality of the unregenerate mind. Instead, to be consistent, and Reformed, we must say the starting point is the Triune God of the Bible, who from all eternity knows and loves Himself and enjoys true communion within the godhead. This God is the ground of all being, and all men have both an inner witness, and the witness of the created order that tells them these things to be true. Yet sinful men willingly and knowingly suppress this knowledge to hide themselves from the truth because their wicked hearts are in rebellion to God.

Is there no place then for the traditional Christian evidences? I would argue that yes, there is a place and a role for both reason and evidence in apologetics. They are the tools which strip away the self deceptive smoke screens by which men hide from the truth. Which this cannot and will not bring about conversion, it does leave the unregenerate man without excuse.

The success of apologetics is not determined by how many people we are able to manipulate into making a decision, but rather by how faithfully we preach the Word of God. For two millennia, the Church has used an evidentiary approach, and Christendom could not withstand the assault of humanism. When a Christian consensus was maintained, then the Christian evidences were sufficient, because men were thinking in Christian categories and terms. But that is no longer true, and the evidence is now rejected out of hand because the presuppositions are firmly in place.

The unregenerate man is like the neurotic who was under the delusion that he was dead. A doctor tried to reason him out of his misbelief. He began by trying to show him dead men don’t bleed. He explained the wonders of the circulatory system, the intricacies of the heart, the fragile life span of human blood. He even took the poor man to the morgue, showed him a cadaver and cut the arm with a knife. “There,” said the doctor, “You now have indisputable proof that dead men don’t bleed.” The neurotic enthusiastically agreed. The doctor then pricked the man’s finger with a pin and squeezed out a small drop of blood. “Now what,” the doctor asked, “do you conclude from this?”

The man replied, “Well, what do you know! Dead men bleed after all!”

Christians cannot reason pagans to correct conclusions about God because we begin with completely different assumptions about the basic nature of reality. We can prove our assumptions to our own satisfaction, but never to his, for his heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. But we can expose the intellectual and moral vacuum of his life. We can make him stare into the miserable abyss to which his god hating presuppositions inevitably lead. We can encourage the faithful, while exposing the rot of humanism.

“But,” some will argue, “if all these things are true, what good does it do to speak to spiritually dead, deaf and blind men who suppress the truth?” The answer is straightforward; evangelism is our responsibility, but conversion is always a sovereign act of God’s grace. It is through preaching that God is pleased to convict men of their sin, regenerate their callused hearts and call them into His kingdom. Apologetics is simply one more tool in the evangelist’s kit that God has commanded us to use.

We have two distinct motivations for using apologetics. The first and foremost is the motivation to please God. We make it our ambition to please Him. And it pleases our heavenly father when we are obedient to Him. Since God has told us to preach the gospel, to give a word for the hope that is within us, we therefore do so gladly! We do not compromise the truth in order to make “converts.” We seek to please God and not men.

Secondly, in light of the above, we recognize that as finite men we can never know the state of another man’s heart because we can only judge the things we see on the outside. Thus when we share with someone about Jesus, we cannot know and we must not judge that man’s spiritual status. We do not know what is really going on inside as we share the truths of the Christian faith. We know that God is pleased to call men into His kingdom through the preaching of the gospel and thus we are responsible before him to do so whenever and where ever we have the opportunity. While we may bear witness of whether or not a man gives evidence of a regenerate heart, we must never take to ourselves what only belongs to God. Only God knows the heart (e.g. Psalm 44:21).

Hence, as we preach, God may well be working within the heart, using our words to convict them of their sin. The apologetics blast away at the smoke screens, at it just may be that God will convert that wicked heart.

The Christian faith need never retreat to intellectual fox holes fearful of the noises of the secular academic big guns. To the contrary, Christ silenced their pop guns at Calvary and the truth of His gospel will blast the enemy from their fortresses (2 Cor 10:4-5).

In 1973, God used the witness of men working in parachurch organizations to bring me to saving faith in His Son Jesus and teach me the fundamentals of a Christian walk. While I was encouraged to attend a “Bible believing church,” no information was given about which particular one to join. Eventually, by default, I became a Baptist. When the Lord called me into the ministry, I attended a Baptist college, Baptist Seminaries, was licensed and ordained as a Baptist minister and served in various Baptist (or baptistic) churches.

One of the most fruitful and productive times of my own spiritual, life occurred while ministering in England as I was doing post-graduate work. My job was every pastor’s dream. I designed the curriculum for Beck House Discipleship Training Center. Every day I went to my office, opened my Bible, turned on my computer and started studying. In the evenings I taught Bible studies, conducted seminars and preached. Again and again as I went back to the Scriptures to find the answers that young Christians desperately needed, I found my own preconceived ideas about the Christian life challenged and over turned. It was during this time the Lord brought me to Reformed convictions. I thought I was teaching others, but in fact, God was teaching me!

As I came to see the implications of the Reformed faith from an organic study of the Scriptures, I envisioned no real difficulty integrating them with my baptistic beliefs and practices. Predestination was historically, the dominant view in Baptist churches, especially Southern ones. Covenant theology simply replaced the vacuum left by Dispensationalism’s hasty intellectual retreat. However, my convictions concerning Baptist ecclesiology, though sincerely held, were never seriously scrutinized. I was so preoccupied with purging my faith of humanism and arminianism that I simply accepted congregational autonomy without much question.

Yet, throughout my ministry in England, the issue of the health and ministry of the church was a constant topic of discussion and debate. Every baptistic church I had ever known had endured serious weakness. They were torn apart by splits and controversies, handicapped by poor theology and doctrine, suffered from sincere, but uninformed teachers who seriously distorted the truth and they were deathly afraid of any form of church discipline.

Though the best churches were aggressive in evangelism, they seemed unsure what to do with new converts once they made them. And they were always unwilling to challenge anyone (since this might drive some away, leading to poor church growth figures). Baptistic churches seemed to produce either egotistical tyrannical pastors, or poorly organized churches run by anarchic, incompetent committees or burned out their ministers by plaguing them with mind-numbing pettiness and endless criticism.

One large piece of the puzzle fit into place while studying 1 Corinthians 6 regarding the necessity of church courts. It was clear church courts were fundamental to a healthy church. Yet NO baptistic church I had ever known had a court system in place. Only one church in my experience had ever practiced church discipline (and at that, only once in 12 years). Yet every baptistic church I knew had endured splits, divisions, bitterness, politicking and power plays because there was no mechanism to deal with problems. In fact, I was repeatedly warned by older and presumably “wiser” men to stay away from personal problems because they would ruin my career! The only solution to a controversy was to fire the pastor, split the church or simply transfer your membership to some place else where the same cycle began all over again.

As a Baptist minister, I affirmed local church autonomy. But in practice, I became convinced that this led to the very divisiveness and schismatic tendencies that had wrecked such havoc in every Baptist church I had known. Yet, even if a church were to have a local court and adjudicate problems by it, what was to keep that court from perverting justice to settle issues the way that certain “powerful” people wanted them to be settled? What was to keep every controversy from becoming a popularity contest? What was to keep the church of Christ from being run by the whims and desires of whoever could manipulate the congregation? Independent, baptistic ecclesiology simply has no solution other than when things get too nasty, split off and form a new church!

In my experience, baptistic churches are like early flowers blighted by frost; they begin so bravely and show so much promise only to wilt when harsh weather hits. The average Baptist pastor moves every 2.5 years. The average Baptist church experiences a major split every 5 years. The average life expectancy of a Baptist church is 50 years. 45% of Baptist kids grow up & leave the church by the age of 25. Even the biggest, most successful mega-churches seemed to achieve their prosperity only by minimizing the commitment people make to join. And how is it that small churches can baptize 40 new believers a year, every year, yet stay approximately the same size?

Clearly, something was desperately wrong. At first, I thought that the fundamental problem was one of application; i.e., we knew what was right but were just deficient in making it work. I decided that when God put me as the senior man in charge, I’d do it right.

Yet, when I did move from a teaching position to serving as the senior Pastor of a Baptist church, I began to see things from a different perspective. Van Til spoke of “epistemological self consciousness” or the tendency of things to become more like their real nature as time progresses. When I began pastoring a church well down the road of baptistic independence, I saw the fruit of a humanistic root.

I only took the church because of a medical emergency in my family making it imperative for me to live in my hometown. Furthermore, I perceived there to be a window of opportunity for revival and hence sincerely believed God called me (in fact, I still do, it’s just that God had different reasons than what I first suspected). But the task was daunting. The church had been gutted by generations of theological compromise as shepherd after shepherd told the people only what they wanted to hear. The church was fractured and divided, run by warring factions and the worst sort of power politics. The church was so rotten spiritually that when I preached on the necessity of regeneration or the deity of Christ, some long term members people became angry and stormed out of services. The church was so compromised with humanism that people who had spent their entire life in her service did not know the term “evangelism” (they called it “soliciting”) and considered the practice somehow immoral and demeaning to the church.

I thought I could change my church by preaching the truth and showing her people where they had gone wrong. And God granted us some magnificent successes. We baptized twice as many new believers as any other church in the state (and this in a church that had not seen a conversion in 20 years!). We went from 95 in morning worship to 225. But what I did not realize was that every new member meant another person who could vote on church business! This changed the traditional balance of power. The old power people no longer could do things the way they wanted and became furious. While there were many good people, they refused to practice discipline against those who were destroying the church because, “We’ve never done it that way!”

The reason why the church had become apostate in the first place was that the people didn’t want to do things God’s way so they had acquired teachers according to their own desires. They may not have liked all the bad results of their mismanagement. But they were unwilling to change the behavior that caused the problems because they wanted to run things their way, not God’s.

No, not every Baptist church is this corrupt. Praise God for every faithful evangelical Pastor, laboring to preach and teach the truth and to retain his integrity in spite of the situation. Praise God for every faithful baptistic church struggling to be obedient to the Lord Jesus (while not always understanding what that requires). But in both cases, the efforts of faithful Pastors and Churches are handicapped by the same underlying theological deviance implicit in baptistic structure and polity.

Most autonomous, baptistic, broadly “evangelical” churches have unabashedly given themselves over to antinomianism, arminianism and humanism. Cheap grace is desired and cheap grace is all too often provided. Even successful churches often appeal to an anti-intellectual, pietistic self-indulgence that says, “if I don’t already know it, it can’t be important.” The congregational form of church government wherein each congregation determines its own doctrine and policy is based on enlightenment humanism, not 1 Timothy 3. The absolute autonomy of the local church clearly contradicts Acts 15 and results in breeding manipulative individuals who run the church according to their own desires.

It became clear to me that the underlying problem was theological rather than practical. If the foundation is wrong, nothing built upon it will be right either. If the foundation cannot be changed, then it was time to start all over again. Yet, as I searched for another church I would want to serve, I quickly came to see that it did not exist in Baptist circles. Again and again as I talked with churches and examined their underlying doctrinal foundation, I saw the same problems, some more developed than others, but all showing the same tendencies.

It was then that the Lord gave grace. The root determines the fruit. You can’t expect apples from pear trees. The only churches I knew that was structured according to Biblical criteria were Presbyterian ones. They were reformed in doctrine, governed by elders, supervised by Presbyteries and covenantal in relationship. In fact, as I examined my personal library, I found that the books that had changed my life and deepened my walk were written by Presbyterian theologians and pastors.

Yes, Presbyterian churches encounter the same problems that all other churches do. No, the people are no more holy by nature than any other part of the body of Christ. But Presbyterians have the right foundation and the right superstructure. They have the mechanisms in place to deal with problems. Consider this, though making up less than 10% of American Evangelicalism, for over 150 years; Presbyterians have shouldered 90% of the intellectual weight for the Christian church!

The big struggle for me was Covenant Baptism; i.e., whether children of believing parents were entitled to the sign of the covenant. Eventually I came to understand that the promise of the new covenant is given not just to us, but also to our children (Acts 2:39). Furthermore, since baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of participation in the covenant (Col 2:11-12), it is therefore not only right but also a requirement that believers baptize their children. At that point, I made official contact with a Presbytery in the PCA and asked to have my ordination credentials recognized.

My rejection of baptistic individualism and acceptance of Presbyterianism was one of the most difficult decisions I had ever made. Many of my friends, teachers and former Pastors now find it difficult to even fellowship with me. As a minister, I cut my chances of finding and serving a church (humanly speaking) by a factor of about a hundred.

But the issue is always obedience to Jesus. We cannot, we must not make decisions based on what will please our friends or give us ministry opportunities. Instead, we must be obedient to the Word, first, foremost and always.

Sadly, too often, some Presbyterians, neglect their heritage and forget what they have been given. There is a disturbing tendency for some to move away from Reformed worship, doctrine and polity to a more “broadly” evangelical view. We look at our small, struggling churches and compare them to baptistic mega-churches with their bulging congregations, fat budgets, ever-growing facilities, and entertainment oriented worship services. We want the same kinds of things they have. So therefore, we think we have to offer the same kind of watered down religion that they do.

Such a move would disastrous for the Church and the cause of Christ in our land. Mainstream evangelicalism is dying even as we speak. I have sampled the best that broad evangelicalism can offer, serving as an intern in one the largest, most successful baptistic churches in America. And yet, if their powerful pastor ever leaves, their own evaluation is “We’ll have the biggest taco stand in Southern California.”

As the world grows more consistent with its rebellion to God, it will self destruct. And hurting people will then have no other option but to turn to the only Church that offers an un-compromised Biblical faith. Reformed theology is Biblical orthodoxy. Covenant theology is the basis of a Biblical hermeneutic. Presbyterianism is Biblical church government. And that is why I became a Presbyterian.

What Are the Doctrinal Standards of the Presbyterian Churches?
Presbyterian churches believe in that the Bible is God’s inspired, inerrant and infallible Word Many different churches split off from the mainline Presbyterian Church (PCUS) over the years because it had departed from the authority and inerrancy of God’s Word. Presbyterians are confessional churches, which means that we have definite doctrinal standards. These standards are contained in the Westminster Confession and catechisms. These documents were hammered out during the high water mark of the Great Reformation and represent perhaps the godliest assembly of wise students of the Bible ever assembled in church history. We believe in the Westminster Confession, not because of tradition, but because its doctrines are the clearest expression yet devised of the Bible’s own message.

Do You Have to Agree with All of the Westminster Confession to Join Your Church?
All those who have received Jesus Christ by faith are members of His invisible church. Therefore, the individual Christian does not have to understand or agree to all of the Westminster Confession, but must agree to abide by them. A person becomes a member by sharing a personal testimony of saving faith in Christ with the Elders. However to hold office as an Elder or Deacon, one must accept the Westminster standards as an accurate summary of Bible doctrine. Furthermore, Pastors are required by their ordination vows to preach and teach consistently with the Confession.

What Do You Believe About the Sacraments?
The Bible teaches two sacraments; the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. We understand these to be signs and seals of God’s grace. As signs, they are pictures of God’s mercy and grace. Baptism is a picture of regeneration. The Lord’s Supper is a picture of God’s love for us in Christ’s death, and of our salvation being purely by His grace.

Yet, we also believe, that in a very real sense, God communicates His grace to us through these sacraments. Baptism sets aside a person as belonging to the covenant community (Acts 2:38-39). The Lord’s Supper strengthens our faith and trust in Jesus. We do not always try to define just how God does these things (e.g., the bread remains bread, the wine remains wine, there is nothing magical going on here), but we do believe the Bible teaches that God uses the sacraments as “means of grace.”

We believe that all those who receive Jesus as Lord are to be baptized as well as their children as a mark of belonging to God’s covenant people. We do not indiscriminately baptize infants, only the children of church members. This type of baptism is known as Covenant Baptism. Just as children in the Old Testament received circumcision as a sign of participation in the Old Covenant, children of believing parents have a portion in the New Covenant (cf. Acts 2:38-39, Colossians 2:11-12). However, a child is not saved just because he has been baptized. Rather, baptism is a sign that the child has the privilege of enjoying the external blessings of the Covenant, (i.e., he can hear the preaching of the Word, receive Christian training and nurturing from his parents and church etc.). When a child is old enough to express saving faith in Christ, he is examined by the elders and then admitted to the Lord’s Supper. A person does not have to accept Covenant Baptism to be a member of the church unless he is an Elder or Deacon. Only baptized believers who are members in good standing of an evangelical church may receive communion.

How are Presbyterian Churches Governed?
Local churches are governed by the Session made up of Teaching Elders (Pastors) and Ruling Elders (laymen trained in the Westminster Confession). The members of a particular church call their own Pastor and elect their own elders based on Biblical criteria. However, a prospective pastor must be examined and approved by the Presbytery before he can begin his ministry. The churches in a given geographical area are overseen by the Presbytery (from the Greek word presbyteros, i.e., elder), which is made up of all the Teaching Elders and delegate Ruling Elders from all the churches (cf. Acts 15:1ff). The Presbytery meets regularly to adjudicate problems, arbitrate disputes, examine candidates for the ministry and ensure that local churches remain faithful to the Word. The Presbyteries are supervised by the General Assembly, which consists of all the Teaching Elders and delegate Ruling Elders from all the churches in the denomination. The General Assembly meets annually to ensure that the Presbyteries are doing their job.

This concept of church government is based partially on 1 Corinthians 6:1ff, which requires Christians to maintain church courts to resolve problems. All Christians sin and all Christians have problems. The question is whether we have a biblical means to resolve those problems so that the Lord Jesus is glorified and factions, schisms and divisions do not occur. Presbyterian churches are far from perfect, but church splits over unresolved problems are rare. If a person has a problem, they take it to their Elders. If their Elders cannot resolve it, they can then appeal to the Presbytery. If for whatever reason the Presbytery cannot deal with the problem, then it goes to the General Assembly. Thus, though Teaching Elders are held in very high esteem, a Pastor is inhibited from abusing his position because he is responsible to his brother elders at the local, Presbytery and General Assembly level.

Can Women Be Elders?
Women are excluded from the office of Deacon and Elder based on 1 Tim 3:1ff and Titus 1:5ff. There is no compromise on this issue. While we value the ministry and gifts of godly women, we believe that God forbids them to teach or exercise authority over men. Many other important ministries, are available to women that do not compromise God’s Word.

What Kind of Preaching Is Common?
Diligent pastors strive to be careful in presenting that Word as powerfully as the Lord gives grace. Our ministers are trained rigorously in Greek and Hebrew, church history, and theology to rightly interpret the Scriptures and feed God’s people spiritual meat. Our worship services are usually simple, dignified and reverent. We believe that God has ordained in His Word how He is to be worshipped and therefore we must seek to please Him rather than men. We believe that Biblical worship has four elements, prayer, singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, reading and expository preaching of scripture, and administering the Sacraments.

Yet, now, twenty years later, I am writing a position paper defending the very doctrine that once made me so angry. What changed?

Well, simply stated, I learned how to study the Bible for myself. And what I learned personally from the Scriptures was so wondrous, so glorious, and so awesome that I had to change my convictions.

Let’s go back a bit and look at some background before I went to college. I had been brought to faith in Christ through a parachurch ministry reaching out to military personnel. I knew first hand that the gospel of Jesus Christ changed lives. It changed mine. It changed my friends. Later on, as a faithful worker for another parachurch organization dedicated to evangelism, I wanted more than anything else to convince people to repent of their sin and receive Jesus Christ as Lord.

But I kept running into a problem. Some people accepted the message, but others did not. I thought perhaps it was my evangelism skills at fault. I was convinced that if I could only argue better, I could win more souls.

So I studied hard, learned answers to all the questions a person could possibly ask and prepared myself like a debater. I was ready to out argue anyone. And with all due modesty, I got real good at it. One night, in the city of York in Northern England, I met a fellow American. He was a student at Cornell University majoring in physics. He was brilliant. We spent the entire night discussing Christianity. And though he had some great arguments, it was no contest. He would throw up an objection to Christianity; and like a trap shooter busting clay pidgins, I would shoot them down. As night turned to dawn, he was like a weary boxer, staggering around after repeated body blows. He was finally out of arguments. I had answered every question, demolished every objection. I had him on the ropes. Finally I asked, “Look, we’ve gone round and round all night. Will you now acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord.”

“No,” he said.

“Why not?” I practically screamed.

“Well, if I accept Jesus as Lord, then I’ll have to stop sleeping with my girl friend.”

There was the real issue. It was not a problem with his head, but a problem with his heart. He didn’t want to receive Christ because he knew that he would have to stop doing what God has forbidden. But couldn’t he understand the consequences of his refusal to accept God’s salvation? Couldn’t he see that his way was suicide? Why would a person chose death over life? I shook my head at his foolishness and pondered his blindness. I remember mumbling something about “free will” and getting on with the next prospect.

Years later, after college, seminary and graduate school, I was back again in England, teaching hermeneutics to young Christians. We were studying the book of Romans when we got to chapter nine. Verse 16 was very troubling. Paul says, “So then, it does not depend on the man who wills, or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Wow, troubling verse. So much for “free” will. I had always focused on convincing the man, but God was saying that salvation does not depend on human will. Verse 18 is even more difficult, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

Now as a good teacher, I was in a real quandary. To make these verses mean something other then what they apparently said, would violate every principle of hermeneutics I had been teaching my students. I had consistently warned my students of hermeneutical “gymnastics” when dealing with troubling texts. “Let God be true and every man a liar” was my catch phrase. And now the teacher was caught. I hated (no other word will suffice) the doctrine of election. But here I was smack up against an entire chapter of the Bible that would not fit my prejudices. What was I going to do?

Well, like any good Christian, I hid my head and hoped it would go away. But my students wouldn’t let me. Every single person in that class came in as an Arminian (i.e., believing that men choose God). Every single one of them came out reformed (believing that God chooses man). What a disaster!

So, I began my own personal Bible study. I did not read any good books, or study what the great thinkers of the past had written. I just opened my Bible and said, “Lord, teach me.” And this is what I found.

First, for the first time, I started with the Bible’s own assessment of unregenerate men. Romans 3:10ff says, “There is none righteous, not even one. There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God.” Do you see what it says here? No one, nobody, nowhere at no time seeks after God. But if that’s true, how does anyone ever come to faith in Christ in the first place? Kind of explains something of the attitude of my friend in York. He wasn’t looking for God, had no real interest in spiritual things, except as a chance to match wits with someone.

Secondly, 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, “but a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised.” Here the natural man, the man without the Spirit of God, neither accepts or understands the gospel. In fact, the Bible says that he cannot do so because only the Spirit can explain them. Yet because he is a “natural” man, he doesn’t have the Spirit! Thus when we share the gospel with unbelievers, they do not, they cannot understand the message. And that also helps explain my college friend. Even though he lost the argument, he remained unconvinced, because he just didn’t understand what the real issues were. And nothing I could do, no argument I could offer could change him.

Thirdly, Second Corinthians 5 explains why the natural man cannot understand spiritual realities. Verse 3-4 says “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ…” Natural men are not only spiritually foolish- they are spiritually blind. They can’t see what we see so clearly. My friend just didn’t see that his actions were leading to death. It was like trying to describe color to a blind man. How can anyone choose the way of death, when the way of life is so clear? Well, it is easily done if they cannot tell the difference. My friend was blind.

Finally, Ephesians 2:1 says, “And you were dead in your transgressions and sin.” Not only is the unbeliever foolish and blind, he’s dead! Ever tried to have a discussion with a dead person? Not much chance of changing their convictions is there? And that’s why I won the argument but lost the soul. I was arguing with a Zombie, whose heart was dead and who therefore was unmoved by my arguments. He could not help but chose the way of death, because he was already dead!

Now here’s the dilemma. How does this foolish, blind, dead person ever come to saving faith in Christ? I used to use an analogy when discussing salvation. I had people picture the Titanic sinking in the North Atlantic. The water is full of drowning survivors. Jesus rows by in a lifeboat throwing out the life preserver of salvation. Anyone who wants to be saved just has to grab on the life preserver and Jesus will reel them in. You grab the lifesaver by faith. It was a great illustration. But it was also dead wrong.

The problem was that it didn’t deal with the Biblical description of men without God. According to the Bible, the people in the water were not just weak and helpless, who needed to trust that Jesus would really save them. They were already dead. They didn’t understand what a life preserver was for, they couldn’t see that the life preserver was being thrown out and they couldn’t hang on because they had already drowned! Dead men don’t have faith. That’s the Biblical picture.

So then, how can anyone be saved? Ephesians 2:9-9 provides the Biblical answer. “For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” I had memorized that verse years before, quoted it hundreds of times, but never understood it. If anyone had asked me what the “gift of God” was I would have said, “salvation of course.” But that is both linguistically and grammatically impossible. The relative pronoun “that” does not refer to “salvation” but rather faith! The gift of God in Ephesians 2:8-9 is not salvation (though salvation is certainly a gift) but faith. Even our ability to believe in God, is a gift from God. God has to change a person’s heart, regenerate them, before they can believe in Him. Only when a man is brought to spiritual life can he trust in God.

2 Corinthians 4:6 says something similar, “For God who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” Remember that blind man? How does he ever see Christ? Not on his own, but only, if God causes light to shine in his heart. Jesus healed the physically blind, as an allegory of His Spirit giving us spiritual sight. But unless God does that, we cannot see.

A better analogy than the Titanic is the airplane that crashed a few years ago in frigid waters just after taking off from a Washington airport. Rescue helicopters let down life preservers into the water, and if the people would only hang on, they could be saved. But the cold waters drained the life out of them. Several poignant pictures show people clinging to life preservers, almost rescued, only to drop back into the icy waters. This was a horrible tragedy, but also an accurate picture of our state before God. In order for those poor people to be rescued, someone had to go right down into the water, drag them aboard a raft, and give them the kiss of life. They couldn’t choose salvation, someone else had to save them.

Salvation is totally an act of God. Nothing about us allows us to contribute to salvation in anyway. We are dead in the water. Jesus doesn’t just throw out a life preserver and say, “Whosoever will, may come.” He literally reaches out, drags us into the lifeboat, and gives us life. We do not save ourselves with his help. He does it all.

But my objection here was, “doesn’t that make God unfair?” Why should He save some and not others?

Let’s go back to Romans 9 again. Verse 19 says, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault for who resists His will?” “Fair question!” I thought, the first time I read it. And I was devastated by the Apostle Paul’s answer. He says, “On the contrary, who are you who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this’ will it?’”

And this is why election is so offensive to us. God says in His Word, that He is God. He created heaven and earth according to His plan and His purposes. He has the right to do anything He wishes with everything in creation. And we do not like that. We don’t like a sovereign God; we want a nice comfortable god that will be there when we need Him. We want a god that will answer our prayers and get us out of trouble. We want a god that is like a rich, indulgent uncle who’ll give us nice things and let us have a good time. But that is not the God of Scripture.

The One True God is the sovereign Lord and King of Heaven and Earth. Everything that He created was intended to display His glory and majesty (Psa 19:1ff). He is the standard of what is right and wrong, good and evil. In Him we live and move and have our being. He is the great “I Am that I Am.”

Paul summarizes our position in Romans 9:22, “What if God, though willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” Do you see what Scripture is saying here? God created some people as “vessels of wrath.” Their whole purpose is to demonstrate God’s power, righteousness and justice. They were prepared for destruction. That’s why He created them.

Paul goes on to say in verse 23, “And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us…” Just as God created some people for wrath, He created others to demonstrate His grace, mercy and goodness. Notice the illustration please; one lump of clay, molded by the Maker into two different types of vessels. Out of the same lump comes one vessel for honor, one for dishonor; one for glory, one for destruction. You may not like it, but that’s what God said. Deal with it. It’s the way things really are.

But what about the “fairness” issue? But think with me for a moment; what does God owe any of us? “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rms 3:23). “All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way” (Isa 53:6). And finally, “the wages of sin is death” (Rms 6:23). The only thing that God owes any of us is death. Everything else is a result of God’s grace, mercy and patience. How then can God be called “unjust” or “unfair” if He decides, as is His sovereign right, to save some of us?

Thus, I believe in predestination because that is what the Bible teaches. “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…” (Eph 1:4) “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself according to the kind intention of His will” (Eph 1:5). “having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11).

I don’t have to like it, but I do have to accept it. God is sovereign. He will do what He will do. His Word is clear that from all eternity He created some for salvation, and others for damnation. Now we cannot see people’s hearts and it is not for us to speculate about who belongs in either camp. “The secret things belong to God.” But in His grace, mercy and sovereignty God can only do what is right. If what He does conflicts with what we think is right, guess who had better change? And that is why I believe in predestination.

Baptism is one of those perennial theological debates in which Christians have been engaged since the 16th century. Sincere believers honestly come to the same Scriptures yet often reach radically different conclusions. All Christians acknowledge that Baptism was instituted by the Lord Jesus as an abiding sign of admission to His church; but the questions of what does it mean, to whom does it apply and how should it be administered continues to divide the faithful. While it is unlikely that we will satisfactorily resolve these questions in one small essay, we can at least explain the Reformed position for those who are new to the faith.

What Do We Mean by Reformed?

The adjective Reformed refers to those Christians who accept the understanding of Scripture hammered out during the Great Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries (summarized in such comprehensive creedal statements as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms). By the 16th century, many people within the Western Catholic (meaning “universal”) church recognized that something had to be done. Various attempts had been made for years (e.g., Hus and Wycliff,) to steer the church back to a more biblical foundation but the ecclesiastical structure often suppressed, persecuted or even killed those who wanted to change the church from the inside.

While all admitted the Church was suffering from corruption, confused doctrine, incompetent priests and superstitious laymen, at the heart of the controversy was the issue of authority; who or what on earth is the ultimate source of authority for Christians? The Roman church insisted that she, through her Popes, councils and ecclesiastical structure had divine authority. The Reformers on the other hand insisted that authority MUST reside in something other than fallible men or contradictory councils and declared that it was found in the Word of God, the Bible.

Eventually this issue of authority came to a head when Martin Luther, a professor of theology, posted his now famous 95 thesis for discussion (1517). His original intention was NOT to separate from the Roman church, but rather engage in an academic debate concerning certain beliefs and practices. Rather than debate these issues, the Roman hierarchy instead attempted to assassinate him and so the Reformation was born.

Eventually, three distinct groups arose during the Reformation; the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Anabaptists. The Lutherans (in Germany and Scandinavia) essentially tried to correct the worst excesses of the Roman church but still retained many of the previous practices. The Anabaptist movement radically disassociated itself with anything to do with the historic church and wanted to return to a “pure” and “primitive” Christianity. The most distinguishing mark of the Anabaptists was the belief that Roman baptisms were invalid and that a person had to be baptized again (hence the name). The Reformed group, most influenced by the writing and leadership of John Calvin, Martin Bucer and John Knox, recognized their historic continuity with the ancient church but wanted to remove the many man-made rituals and traditions that had no Biblical support. Essentially they attempted to build a comprehensive Christian worldview based on the Scriptures.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and Baptism

By 1647, the Reformation had spread throughout all of Northern Europe despite persecution, religious wars and hostility. Scottish and English delegates met together at the Westminster Assembly during the English civil war to draft a comprehensive doctrinal statement based on all the work of the previous reformers. Many scholars believe that this assembly represented the best theological minds of a great era. Committed, conscientious and pious Christian men, who had suffered terribly and paid a high price for their faith, met together to discuss the Scriptures. The resulting documents (the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, Form of Government and Directory of Worship) are widely regarded even today as representing the finest attempt yet to faithfully explain the basic teachings of Scripture and their application to Christ’s church.

The doctrine of Baptism is found in chapter 28 and begins by stating that it is a sacrament ordained by the Lord Jesus Himself. The Reformers used the word “sacrament” to refer to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, a Latin term that meant “oath” of allegiance” and originally referred to the solemn vow a soldier took when joining the Roman legions. This word is rightly applied to Baptism since it is the means of “solemn admission” into the visible church. The church is the body of Christ here on earth commanded and empowered by the Lord Jesus to do His work in the world (Matt 28:19-20). Baptism is the visible sign that a person belongs to Christ and His church; it is the New Testament replacement for circumcision (Col 2:11-12; see attached essay).

But the Reformers also saw baptism as a visible “sign” and “seal” of the grace God gave to His people by Jesus dying in our place, bringing our dead hearts to spiritual life so that we could believe in Him, forgiving our sins and the power to walk in that newness of life. In other words, Baptism is a visible sign and oath from God to us that He will save us from our sins and it is a visible sign and oath from us to God that we will trust in His Son Jesus and live accordingly. In some sense it is also a “seal” of the grace that God has promised; in other words, God’s promises are so true and certain that the “picture” can be taken as a reality-if God said He will save us, He WILL save us!

Our Baptist brothers make much of the Greek word “baptidzo” which they insist means “to dip” and thus they immerse (or “dunk”) candidates for baptism. Reformed scholars however have demonstrated that the word actually is better understood as “wash” and was used in the Old Testament to refer to various “sprinklings” or “washings” when water was poured over a person. Baptism symbolizes (i.e., is a “sign” of) the total work of the Holy Spirit bringing a person to spiritual life. John the Baptizer prophesized that he could only baptize with water but the coming Messiah would baptize with the Holy Spirit. His prophecy was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came down from above and alighted over the heads of the Apostles. This visible act was a demonstration of the Spirit regenerating God’s people, washing them clean from their sins by aoolying to them the merits of Christ’s sacrifice. Since the Holy Spirit descended from above, and water baptism is a picture of Spirit baptism, the Reformed view is that the “best” mode is to pour or sprinkle water over the head. Immersion is not necessary.

Perhaps even more controversial than the mode of Baptism is the Reformed view of “covenant” or “infant” baptism. Baptists insist that baptism may be lawfully applied only to those who make a profession of faith in Christ; the Reformers however believed that the children of believers could and should be baptized. This is based on several lines of Biblical evidence: if “New” Testament baptism replaces “Old” Testament circumcision as a sign of inclusion into the visible covenant community, then logically, the same people who were circumcised in the Old Testament should be baptized in the New. Since, in the Old Testament, all male babies were required to be circumcised, therefore, at least in the New Testament era, all male babies should be baptized. Simply because an Israelite was circumcised did NOT mean that he personally had saving faith; the entire history of the “Old” Testament is replete with examples of circumcised Israelites who worshipped idols and were condemned by God. But circumcision DID mark of God’s people from the pagan world and was a sign that they were the special recipients of His grace and mercy.

In the “New” Testament, women were also baptized which means that God now wants His covenant sign to be given to women as well as men. Logically then, female babies should now receive the covenant sign as well as male babies.

The second line of evidence for giving baptism to the children of professing parents is found in Acts 2:38-39 wherein the Apostles CLEARLY state that the promise of regeneration, forgiveness and baptism are given to “you AND your children.” The Reformers believed that salvation was a sovereign act of God and that He has promised (generally speaking) to save the children of believing parents (1 Cor 7:14). Thus baptizing one’s children is an act of faith on the part of Christian parents, claiming the promises of God to save their children. It also brings the children into the visible expression of the household of God, marking them off from the world.

The Reformers however rejected any “magical” element of baptism; they did not believe that simply because they performed a certain ritual that either they or their children were automatically saved (the view called “baptismal regeneration”). They acknowledged that while baptism was a command that we ought to obey, there might be unusual situations or circumstances where a person might well be saved, but never baptized (WCF 28:5). Baptism is an outward sign that one belongs to God; yet there might well be those who truly belong to Christ who have never been baptized; and there are many who are baptized who NEVER come to saving faith.

The Reformers also noted that though baptism was a sign and seal of the grace of God in Christ, washing away our sins and purifying our hearts that we might accept Him as our Lord, the “efficacy” was not tied to the timing. In other words, baptism MAY precede faith in Christ as in the case of little children who cannot yet express faith. Salvation is always a sovereign act of God spiritually cleansing a wicked heart. Thus for example, a child might well be baptized, but that child’s heart may not yet have been regenerated by God. At the same time, a child, even from its mother’s womb COULD have a heart regenerated by God (as in the case of John the Baptizer). Our faith is a gift from God: a gift He can lawfully give whenever HE wills (Eph 2:8-9). A child might be given faith years before he is able to express that faith intelligently; how else do we explain the spiritual status of those whose natural intelligence is handicapped? On the other hand, it might be years before the promise contained in the baptism is fulfilled by God and a person comes to saving faith that Jesus Christ is Lord. But when God does fulfill that promise the baptism is still effective irrespective of when that baptism took place; the person does not have to be baptized again. The “sign” has now become a reality.

Baptized children (for that matter ALL baptized persons) have many benefits; they are treated as Christians and held accountable to the divine Law. They are to receive instruction and catechism in the Faith, they are to live like Christians and are blessed by seeing examples of godliness and grace every day. If they neglect the faith implicit in their baptism, then they are held doubly accountable for spurning the great gifts of God.

CONCLUSION

Baptism is a visible sign and a spiritual seal of an invisible process; according to His own will and timing, God sends His Holy Spirit to apply the grace of God in Christ to His people that we might be saved from our sins. Baptism is an oath from God to us that He will forgive us and unite us to Him through His son Jesus. And it is an oath from us to Him that we will turn from our wicked ways, trust in Christ alone for our salvation and walk in obedience to Him. It is a visible symbol that we are distinct or separate (the meaning of the Biblical word “holy”) from the world and belong to Christ. Clearly, to refuse Baptism is to refuse Christ by refusing the sign that He has given His church to identify those who belong to Him.

Thus Baptism is important as an oath, a sign and a seal of what Christ has done: perfectly fulfilling all the righteous requirements of God’s Holy Law and dying for all our transgressions of it. Through Baptism, we confess the spiritual reality that for those whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to Christ (Rms 8:29). Thus every person who confesses that Jesus is Lord, believes that He rose from the dead, and trusts that He has perfectly fulfilled all the holy demands of God on our part should be baptized and offer their children to God in baptism as an act of faith and hope.

APPENDIX: IS BAPTISM A REPLACEMENT FOR CIRCUMCISION?

An Analysis of Colossians 2:11-12 (September, 1992)

God’s revelation of Himself is a wondrous complexity of awesome mystery and intricacy. Each of us tries to fit the pieces of the puzzle together the best we can. Sometimes our understanding may be quite close to the mark; at other times, we may be totally wrong. Sometimes, once we get an idea in our heads, it can terribly difficult to shake out, no matter how wrong-headed it may be. Psychologists have noticed that human beings tend to see just what they expect to see. In one experiment, subjects were given random patterns of dots and told to look for hidden pictures. Even though in reality there were no pictures, most people still thought they found some. Even more surprisingly, a significant number of people continued to see the pictures, even when they were told no such picture existed! It is very difficult to shake free from preconceived ideas.

This trait of seeing only what we expect to see can be quite serious when it comes to Bible study. Some people are so convinced that they already KNOW what the Bible says on an issue that it can never tell them anything new. There is a tendency to read into passages exactly those meanings we expect to find (and being sinful human beings this usually means an interpretation that conveniently lets us off the hook). But if we want to grow in our faith and learn how to please and serve our Lord better, we must allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves. We must learn to submit even our preconceived ideas to the authority of God’s Word.

One example of how difficult this struggle can be was my own failure to adequately interpret certain passages on baptism. For years, since I already KNEW what these passages had to mean, I simply interpreted them according to my own presuppositions. I never did ask myself whether those presuppositions were correct. I just started with my own theology and then read that theology into the passage. It was only when forced to reexamine those passages from a completely different perspective that I saw things that I had never before seen. And as a result, I had to make some very big changes in not only my understanding of baptism, but my practice as well.

I was studying Colossians 2:11-12 in my personal devotions: “And in Him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without human hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Christ in baptism, in which you which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead…” Several things seem to leap out at me from the text. First, circumcision is here used as a symbol of regeneration. The “removal of the body of flesh” refers to the death of our old nature and the creation of our new one (see 2 Cor 5:17). The circumcision of Christ was His being “cut off” at His crucifixion. He died in our place. We are spiritually circumcised when the benefits of His death are applied to us through the death of our old nature (see Rms 6:1ff).

Now here is where the text begins to get interesting. If you leave out the qualifying material and connect the main thoughts from both verses, the passage seems to equate baptism with circumcision; i.e., “you were also circumcised… having been buried with Christ in baptism.” Thus, our circumcision occurred at baptism. But for a Baptist, this was a little hard to swallow. If this baptism refers to water baptism then one would only experience regeneration when one received water baptism. Thus, salvation would not be of grace, but would also require a work (i.e., baptism). In fact, this is exactly what baptismal regeneration teaches; that one is not saved unless one is baptized.

But since salvation is not a result of works, but according to God’s grace, the baptism here cannot refer to water baptism. It must refer to some other baptism. What other baptism is there? Ah ha! The only other baptism is Spirit baptism. Charismatics and Pentecostals make Spirit baptism an unusual event that some, but not all believers experience. But Spirit baptism is simply another way of figuratively speaking about regeneration. We are baptized into Christ (Rms 6:3) when we become Christians. Thus Spirit baptism and circumcision are both figurative ways of speaking about the same event; regeneration.

Now it begins to get sticky. If water baptism is a symbol of Holy Spirit baptism and both are symbols of regeneration then that would lend support to the Covenant theology doctrine that equates Old Testament circumcision with New Testament Baptism. The Old Testament was the shadow, the New Testament the fulfillment. Circumcision foreshadowed the penalty of sin (i.e., being cut off, death) and the willingness of the Messiah to bear that penalty for us. Now that the Messiah has come and has borne that penalty, it is no longer appropriate for us to bear the sign of the old covenant.

For example, the Old Testament obliges God’s people to celebrate Passover in remembrance of the Lord’s deliverance from the tyranny of Egypt. Yet Passover itself is but a shadow of the Lord’s own first-born Lamb suffering and dying for His people. Now that Christ has come, we no longer celebrate Passover but the Lord’s Supper instead. The simple meal of wine and bread is the new symbol of the Lord’s deliverance of His people.

Thus in the same way, now that the Messiah has come, it is no longer proper to use circumcision as a symbol of entrance into the covenant. We have a new symbol, baptism. In the Old Testament, the promise of the fullness of the Spirit was yet future. Now it is a reality. When the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, He entered into human hearts, converting dead fleshly beings into spiritually alive new creations (2 Cor 5:17). Thus, water baptism is a replacement for circumcision.

Now if this is true, then the question arises, to whom then should this symbol be applied? Covenant theology insists that God deals with peoples, not just individuals. Covenantal theology teaches that God is pleased to work within families. Peter said on the day of Pentecost that the promise of regeneration and participation in God’s divine family were “for you and your children and for… as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself… (Acts 2:39).”

In the Old Covenant, the symbol of participation in the covenant (i.e., circumcision) was applied to every male child on the eighth day. This did not mean that every individual Hebrew child was saved, only that the child was included in the covenant community. If the child grew up and rejected the covenant, he was “cut off” and the symbol of blessing became a symbol of cursing. Jesus said, “To whom much is given, much is expected.” The Jews paid a heavy price for their apostasy and rebellion. The mark of the Covenant could either be a blessing or a curse depending upon whether it was followed up by faith.

Thus, I came to see that in the same way, Baptism as a symbol should be applied to the children of believing members of the church. God’s covenant is not just for individuals, but for families as well. The sign of the covenant is a promise by God that He will remain faithful to His Word. No, it does not mean that every baptized infant is saved (just as no Baptist would ever say that every person who professes faith and is baptized is necessarily saved).

The significance of this came home to me when I was pastoring a Baptist church some years ago. When Baptist children hit their early teen years, usually some sort of “revival” breaks out in the youth group and most of the teens will get “saved” in a fairly short period of time. They then come forward for baptism. In this case, as a number of young people were baptized, one teenage girl from a believing family also came forward. The girl though sweet in spirit suffered from emotional and learning difficulties. We worked with her for weeks, catechizing and instructing and going over the plan of salvation. No matter how hard we tried, she was never able to verbalize an unprompted, coherent confession of faith. Without that confession, though, as a conscientious Baptist Pastor, I was unable to baptize her, which caused her, her family and a number of others in the church a great deal of heartburn. Couldn’t I just bend the rules a little bit?

No, I could not. But the dilemma she faced would not go away. What was her status before God? Is she always to be excluded from the blessings of the Covenant because she had learning disabilities? What about all those people who lack the mental or physical capacity to profess faith? Are they God’s rejects? What is their relationship to the Church? I didn’t have an answer then.

Now though I see that God works in families. That young girl did have a portion in the Covenant and should have been baptized as a child. It is good, right and proper that the children of believing parents be given the sign of blessing. Now 1 Corinthians 7:14 makes sense: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” This verse is very hard to understand from a Baptist’s perspective, but makes perfect sense to those who hold to Covenant baptism. The children of even one believing parent are holy; not that they are not sinners by nature, but rather holy in the sense of being under the blessings of the Covenant. Covenant children have believing parents who teach them God’s law and commandments and provide models of Christ-like love and character. They are under the care of a Christian church that helps nurture and encourage them. They grow up hearing the gospel as a normal part of their lives.

Does this mean that all Covenant children are saved? Not necessarily, their baptism is to be a constant reminder that they have been given great blessings. But God must still work in their hearts, granting repentance, regenerating their hearts and giving them saving faith. If they turn away and reject these blessings, their condemnation, if possible, is worse than that of a heathen child.

“For if we go on sinni