by Sam Waldron | Sep 11, 2025 | Apologetics
*Editor’s Note: The following material is the seventeenth of Dr. Sam Waldron’s 20-part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. Click on the following numbers to read the accompanying parts of this series:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
The Defense of Special Revelation’s Declaration of the Gospel of God
I argued at the beginning of Part 3 of this study of the defense of the faith that its theological foundations must deal with the defense of the two sources of our knowledge of God. Section 1 has dealt with the defense or authentication of the first of these two sources. We have seen that natural or general revelation clearly and directly makes known the existence and character of the living God. We have seen that it needs no defense or proof because it constantly justifies itself in the being of every man. Human failure to admit the existence and character of the living God is not due to any lack of certainty or clarity in general revelation. It is due only to the sin of men by which they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
It is important to remind ourselves at the outset of this treatment that natural revelation is the context or presupposition of positive, special, or redemptive revelation. This assumed context of redemptive revelation, as we will see, is implied in the Bible’s entire approach to the authentication of redemptive revelation. It is the existence of the living God which is the framework and presupposition of redemptive revelation.
I have entitled this section the defense or authentication of positive, special, or redemptive revelation. These are simply names for the same thing. They speak of that revelation of God to men given in addition to nature (positive), after the fall only to His special people (special), and after the fall to save God’s people from their sins (redemptive).
In this section of our studies we will consider the biblical teaching on how we know the Bible to be the Word of God and how we should defend this truth to others. I have chosen to incorporate both these ideas into the title of this section and speak of the authentication or defense of positive revelation. Our studies of this subject will be divided into two parts:
- Its Biblical Illustration: Peter’s Defense of the Gospel in 2 Peter
- Its Systematic Presentation: The Biblical and Reformed Doctrine of the Self-Authentication of Scripture
I make no claim that these two headings will thoroughly cover all that the Bible teaches on this subject. There are many other useful paths of study which we might walk. We might study the subjects of the connection of miracles and faith, the relation of faith and sight, and the proof of Christ’s resurrection.
It is my hope, however, that by approaching the defense of redemptive revelation in two ways we will avoid being imbalanced. In the first way we will use a method that is closer to biblical theology. In the second way we will use a method that is closer to systematic theology. I hope combining these two methods will cover most of the important ideas of the Word of God.
Under the first Roman numeral we will study a single, biblical illustration of how redemptive revelation was defended. We will study how Peter defended the gospel when it was under attack by alien forces. Under the second Roman numeral we will study the subject topically. There we will bring together the different approaches of church history to defending the Bible. Then we will bring together in a topical way what the Bible itself teaches about how we know it is the Word of God, and how it is to be defended.
I. Its Biblical Illustration: Peter’s Defense of the Gospel in 2 Peter
Introduction: The Apologetic Situation Present in 2 Peter
A. The Fact of the Threat
2 Peter was written for the precise purpose of defending the faith of the gospel against a very specific threat. The apologetic purpose of 2 Peter is seen at most length in chapter two’s attack against the false teachers. But the fact that Peter is concerned to defend the faith in 2 Peter is specifically declared in 2 Peter 3:17 and 18. These verses are the concluding summary of the entire letter. In them the burden of the letter is stated. The burden of the entire letter is summarized in the two verbs which balance each other in these two verses, “be on your guard,” and “grow.” These two verbs summarize the two sides of the coin minted in 2 Peter. Thus, it is a proper to say that at least one half of the purpose of 2 Peter is to warn its readers to “be on their guard” against “the error of unprincipled men.” In order to assist his readers in this crucial responsibility Peter carefully constructs within 2 Peter the defenses of the Christian faith against the error then threatening that faith.
B. The Nature of the Threat
Before we can properly understand the meaning for our apologetics of how Peter defends Christianity, we must have an understanding of what he is defending it against. From indications in 2 Peter and its sister letter Jude it seems clear that the heretical threat against which Peter is endeavoring to defend his readers is an early form of Christianized Gnosticism.[1] What this heresy taught may be seen more specifically from the features of this heresy which may be collected from 2 Peter and Jude. This heresy is confronted most directly in two passages in 2 Peter: 2:1-3 and 3:3, 4. I will use the first of these two passages to organize the main things we can learn about this heresy.
In 2 Peter 2:1-3 Peter labors to convince his readers of the terrible threat to their souls from this heresy in two ways. He draws an analogy from the past, and he gives a prophecy about the future. It is the prophecy about the future which is the focus of our attention. This is because it reveals the character of the heresy.
In this prophecy the Holy Spirit selects those things which ought most to shock us into the conviction that we must guard against the false teachers. This prophecy dwells on three points about the false teachers, each of which in its own way emphasizes the threat they pose:
i. The Tricky Strategy They Use
ii. The Terrible Heresy They Teach
iii. The Triple Injury They Inflict
i. The Tricky Strategy They Use
Peter emphasizes the tricky strategy or subtle scheme of these false teachers in the words, “who will secretly introduce destructive heresies …” The participle, “who will secretly introduce,” is one word in the original. Some interpreters think it means merely introduce, while others think it means secretly introduce. This word means‑-literally‑-either bring in from the side or bring in beside. In my opinion either meaning suggests that the methods or schemes of these false teachers were sneaky or tricky. If the word means to bring in from the side the idea is, as we would say, that they brought in their heresy through the side door‑-sneaking it in. If the word means to bring in beside, the idea seems to be that they placed their heresy beside the truth already possessed by the church. In other words, they didn’t openly disown or blatantly deny the truth. They simply introduced their heresy beside it‑-never bothering to mention the fact that in reality it completely contradicted what the church believed. Here the idea would be that they did not throw the bread of life into the garbage, they simply spread over it the poisonous jelly of their error. I believe, therefore, that the idea of secrecy or at least sneakiness and trickiness cannot be erased from this word. The parallel passage in Jude 4 confirms that the schemes of these false teachers were sneaky and involved secrecy.
This language of secrecy and stealth hints at what is implied both in verses 1 and 3. The supporters of this heresy were professing Christians arising from within the visible church. The analogy between the visible people of God in the Old Covenant and New Covenant set up in verse 1 shows this clearly by the language, “there will also be false teachers among you,” is used. The statement of verse 3 that “because of them the way of the truth will be maligned” also clearly suggests this. If they had not presented themselves as Christian teachers within Christian churches, their evil deeds would not have caused people to say bad things about “the way of the truth.”
ii. The Terrible Heresy They Teach
The second point which Peter makes in emphasizing how dangerous the false teachers were concerns the terrible heresy they teach. Sometimes the word translated heresy may simply mean a division. Here the word translated, heresy, refers to false doctrine. This reference has been challenged by some who think that this word here means a sect or division. This word can, indeed, refer to a religious sect. The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Nazarenes are each called a sect in the New Testament (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5). This word can also refer to divisions or factions in the church (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20).
But everything about the context of the use of this word in 2 Peter 2:1 points to the meaning heresy or false doctrine. First, Peter has been speaking of false prophets and false teachers earlier in the verse‑-not of divisive or factious people. Thus, it is much more natural to see this word as meaning false doctrine here. Second, the clause which follows this reference to heresies of destruction makes reference clearly to false doctrine. It speaks of “denying the Master who bought them.” Third, there is no reference in all of 2 Peter to the false teachers being divisive or factious. Undoubtedly they were divisive, but this is never mentioned. In this context, therefore, only the meaning, heresy, makes sense.
The heresy taught by these false teachers is‑-according to Peter–terrible in two respects. It is terrible in its own nature and terrible in its results for those who believe and teach it.
It is terrible in its own nature. It is “even denying the Master who bought them.” This clause emphasizes the daring impudence and boldness of these false teachers, but what exactly is the heresy described in these words? I believe these words imply that this heresy consists in at least two perversions: a perversion of the grace of God and a perversion of the person of Christ.
It is a perversion of the grace of God. They deny the master by claiming to be His slaves, but contradicting this by the character of their lives. It is not necessary to verbally renounce Christ in order to deny Him (1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Tim. 3:5; Tit. 1:16). As Paul says in Titus 1:16 it is possible to deny Christ by your deeds, as well as by your words. This is what these false teachers clearly did. They claimed that Christ was their master or sovereign lord. This word is the word used in the New Testament of a master of slaves. Thus, they confessed Christ to be the master and themselves to be His slaves. This idea is consistent with this very chapter’s teaching. Notice verse 19. They claimed to be Christ’s slaves, but in reality they were the slaves of corruption. Notice also the implication of verse 2. They deny Him. How? By the sensuality and immorality of their lives. Notice also Jude 4.
So blatant is the contradiction between the claims and the lives of these false teachers that we naturally ask, “How in the world could they deceive themselves and others when there was such a contradiction between their claims and their lives?” The answer to this question is that they taught a perversion of the doctrine of salvation by grace. This is hinted at in verse 19 where it is said that they promise new converts freedom. In other words they emphasized the liberty and freedom which believers have in Christ. This is confirmed by the parallel passage in Jude 4 where it is said that they deny the master and turn the grace of God into sensuality (the same word used in 2 Pet. 2:2).
This perverted doctrine of grace is also connected with Peter’s mention of Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter’s good words about the apostle Paul and his writings have an unspoken purpose. When we remember that the apostle Paul was supremely the Apostle of Grace, it seems clear that some at least of the false teachers were twisting statements of the apostle to support their perverted doctrine of grace. Peter is telling his readers that they must not be influenced by this misuse of Paul’s writings either to embrace the false teaching, on the one hand, or, on the other hand to reject the writings and ministry of the apostle Paul.
This heresy is also a perversion of the person of Christ. This is another reason why they are said to deny the master. This perversion comes to view in 2 Peter 3 where the mockers are mentioned. It is natural and necessary to identify the mockers prophesied there with the false teachers predicted in chapter two. They are one and the same false teachers. These false teachers according to verse 4 denied the second coming of Christ. This again raises the pressing question, How could they do this and still call themselves Christians?
The seeming impossibility of claiming to believe in Christ but denying His second coming can be explained by remembering that these false teachers in all likelihood made the same distinction which the later gnostic heretics made. They made a distinction between the fleshly man, Jesus, and the heavenly spirit, Christ. With this distinction it is possible to say that the gospel has no relation to the material world. Thus, it is possible to say that one believes in the Christ and still deny the bodily incarnation, the bodily resurrection, and the bodily return of Jesus as the Christ. Such a heresy could by using this distinction between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Christ deny the Master and the Second Coming by refusing to identify Jesus as the heavenly Christ and Son of God. In effect these false teachers would end up divorcing Christianity from the physical world. This would strengthen their immorality by enabling them to argue that it is only the spiritual world which matters. The physical world counts for nothing. Thus, what we do in the physical world of sense cannot be related in any way to salvation. This would open the door for the most awful sensualism, the very sensualism so vividly predicted in chapter two.
Related to this perversion of the person of Christ and denial of the second coming of Christ was a denial of apostolic and canonical authority. The assertion that the Gnostics denied apostolic authority may seem to be contradicted by the emphasis above on their claiming the authority of the apostle Paul. We know, however, from church history that later Gnosticism tampered with the canon of Scripture. The Gnostics denied canonical authority by their deliberately selective use of it. Marcion, for instance, denied the authority of all the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments except for the Gospel of Luke and ten Epistles of Paul. Even these he revised drastically. The Gnostic teachers claimed an inward wisdom and direct spiritual access to the heavenly Christ which had been denied to the twelve apostles in particular. The denial of canonical authority is indicated in the two passages in 2 Peter which emphasize the authority of the New Testament apostles and the Old Testament prophets (1:12-21 (especially verse 16); 3:1, 2 with Jude 17).[2]
We have seen, then, that this heresy is terrible in its own nature. It is also terrible in its results for both those who teach and believe it. Peter uses the same word, destruction, to describe both realities. He calls this heresy, a heresy of destruction. This means that it is an error which will destroy the souls of those who embrace it. He then remarks that these false teachers by teaching such an evil heresy “bring swift destruction upon themselves.” Thus, it destroys those who teach it as well. What is the destruction of which Peter is speaking? Peter uses this same word a third time in verse 3. Clearly, Peter is thinking of the destruction which overtakes the wicked at the day of judgment (and perhaps also of an even closer temporal destruction which may overtake these false teachers‑-compare vv. 4-9).
iii. The Triple Injury They Inflict
The triple injury of which I speak is laid out in the three clauses of verses 2-3a. Who or what is it that is being injured? It is the same thing in each case, the visible church of Christ. This is clear in the second and third clauses of this passage. The reference to the “way of truth” in the second clause and “you” in the third clause clearly refers to the Christian church. Though there is no explicit reference to the church in the first clause, the context makes clear that it also is speaking of an injury to the visible church. The “many” who follow the sensuality of the false teachers are clearly members or at least potential members of the visible church. This is certain from the fact that the false teachers rise up from within the church (v. 1). Thus, the sphere of their influence is the visible church, and the many they influence are drawn from among the membership of the visible church. Thus, each of the three injuries inflicted by these false teachers are injuries to the visible church. The false teachers injure the church’s membership, its reputation, and its resources. Thus, Peter’s apologetic in 2 Peter is intended for the very practical and crucial end of defending the visible church from professing Christian teachers.
Conclusions
It is this situation which must be kept in mind as we attempt to understand the nature of Peter’s apologetic. In particular several salient points of importance for apologetics and especially the defense of special revelation become clear from it. First, it is possible radically to distort the Christian gospel even while giving lip service to the name of Christ and making a deliberately selective use of special revelation. The Gnostics taught a heretical gospel which destroyed themselves and their hearers by a simple but deliberate process of subtraction from and addition to canonical authority. Our method of authenticating canonical authority must defend it as a whole and in its entirety. Otherwise our apologetic is inadequate and leaves the gospel vulnerable to heretical subversion. Second, it is not possible to separate the defense of positive revelation (the Bible) from the defense of natural revelation (God). The Gnostic perversion of the gospel assumed a perverted (dualistic) view of God. The Gnostic view of God logically required the perversion of the gospel. This suggests that Van Til is right when he insists that it is insufficient to defend an abstract theism and then (with a block-house kind of methodology) build on that a defense of the Bible. The only true theism is Christian theism. The only theism it is the business of Christian apologetics to defend is Christian theism. Only Christian theism provides the proper context in which to understand and defend biblical revelation. Third, having emphasized the inseparability of Christian theism and the Christian gospel for apologetics, it remains true that false doctrine’s point of attack in 2 Peter is centered on the redemptive revelation contained in the Scriptures. Hence, careful attention to Peter’s defense of the gospel will be very relevant to our study of how we know the Bible is the Word of God and how that truth should be defended.
[1]Gnosticism was an intellectual parasite that attached itself to many different religions. There is evidence in the New Testament for both a Judaizing Gnosticism (Cf. The Epistle to the Colossians.) and a Gnosticism which paraded itself as a kind of super-Christianity (Cf. The Epistle of 1 John.) The Gnostic parasite once it infected a host organism produced all sorts of monstrous changes in it–moving it in the direction of a dualism between spirit and flesh and teaching the necessity of all sorts of heavenly mediators between the world of spirit and the world of flesh.
[2]This denial is to be seen in the several places in 1 John where John places a tremendous emphasis on the apostolic eyewitness as the criterion of genuine Christianity (1:1-3; 4:1-6).
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 11, 2025 | Apologetics
*Editor’s Note: The following material is the sixteenth of Dr. Sam Waldron’s 20-part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. Click on the following numbers to read the accompanying parts of this series:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
Apologetic Observations from Acts 17
I. Paul’s View of General Revelation
Surely if anything is clear from Paul’s presentation, it is that Paul thought that the pagan Athenians were ignorant of God (vv. 23, 30). This is the theme of the entire proclamation. Because of this, Paul conceives his central duty to be to declare as God’s mouthpiece the true knowledge of God to them. Hence, the bulk of the sermon is just such information (vv. 24‑29). This harmonizes well with his wholly negative evaluation of their religion in Romans 1:23f. Paul does not view their idolatrous religion as having some positive value. Paul does not look upon their religion favorably. Paul does not see it as containing a little knowledge of God. Paul does not in the fashion of natural theology view them as possessing a vague or potential knowledge of God. He views them as ignorant of God.
But the very clarity of Paul’s emphasis on their ignorance of God ought to raise a question which goes both to the heart of apologetics and to the heart of Paul’s evaluation of his Athenian hearers. How is this emphasis on the ignorance of the Athenians consistent with the emphasis of Romans 1:18‑2:15 that men are aware of, and in that sense do know, the character and demands of the living God? Four considerations will help us answer this question and in the process make clear some critical, but less obvious, features of Paul’s view of the Gentiles and their knowledge of God.
(1) Romans 1 as well as other passages in Paul’s writings clearly emphasize the Gentiles’ ignorance of God (Rom. 1:21-25; Eph. 4:17‑19; 1 Cor. 1:21; 2:6‑8). It should not surprise us, therefore, that Paul emphasizes the ignorance of the Gentiles in Acts 17. This is a continual emphasis of Paul in his other letters. Furthermore, we should not conclude that the obvious emphasis on the ignorance of the Gentiles in Acts 17 contradicts the idea that in another sense they possessed a certain awareness or knowledge of God. If these two things can be taught right next to each other in Romans 1, this may also be the case in Acts 17. If Paul can juxtapose the Gentiles’ knowledge and ignorance of God in Romans 1, he may also do it in Acts 17.
(2) We must also notice that the ignorance of Acts 17:23f.–far from excusing the Gentiles–is itself blameworthy. It is guilty ignorance. Verses 29 and 30 make this certain. In verse 29 Paul, having just quoted a heathen poet to support his point, concludes his exposition of the true nature of God with a pointed application. He says we‑-including the Gentiles with himself‑-ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold, etc. The Greek word, ofeilomen, refers to one’s ethical duty or moral obligation. It is the Gentile’s moral obligation to avoid idolatrous thoughts. It is not merely that now after hearing Paul’s message it is their duty. Rather Paul’s citing of the heathen poet in corroboration of his point shows that it has always been the Gentiles’ duty in the light of general revelation to avoid idolatrous thoughts. As the offspring of God living and moving and having their being in God, they ought never to have thought idolatrously. Verse 30 supports this by speaking of how God overlooks their sin. As we have seen, this in no way means that God was indifferent to their sin. If God were indifferent to it, there would have been no need for God to overlook it. No, God’s overlooking of the times of ignorance speaks to us of His patient forbearance with sin because of a gracious purpose to the Gentiles. The blameworthiness of their ignorance implies that it disguises and suppresses a certain awareness of the living God. Bahnsen says:
Paul’s writings also establish that, because all men have a clear knowledge of God from general revelation, the unbeliever’s suppression of the truth results in culpable ignorance. Men have a natural and inescapable knowledge of God, for He has made it manifest unto them, making his divine nature perceived through the created order, so that all men are `without excuse’ (Rom. 1:19‑20). This knowledge is `suppressed in unrighteousness’ (v. 18), placing men under the wrath of God, for `knowing God, they glorified Him not as God’ (v. 21). The ignorance which characterizes unbelieving thought is something for which the unbeliever is morally responsible.[1]
(3) Paul in this address is satisfied simply to affirm or assert the fact of the existence and character of God. There is no attempt at a systematic proof for the existence and character of the living God. It is true that there are quotations of heathen poets in support of his assertions. But these are clearly brought in only as a secondary argument. (Note the language of verse 28: “As even some of your own poets have said.”) This raises the question, How can Paul expect the simple assertion of truth to constrain its believing acceptance? The only answer to this question is that Paul believed (as he teaches in Romans 1 and 2) that the Gentiles possessed a fundamental awareness of the character and demands of the living God. This knowledge made proof or evidence unnecessary. That some did believe without such proof and merely on the basis of Paul’s proclamation further shows that such proof is not necessary.
(4) We are considering whether there are any indications in Paul’s address in Acts 17 that he believed that the Gentiles in some sense possessed the knowledge of God. Probably the most significant fact in this passage in regard to this must now be considered. It is the fact that Paul appeals to heathen poets for support of his assertions (v. 28).
Before we can evaluate the significance of this fact for the Gentiles’ knowledge of God, certain questions raised by this fact must be examined. Is Paul approving of their heathen theology, at least that part he cites? If not, how is it valid for him to cite heathen poets to prove his point?
Let us examine the verse in question. In verse 28, Paul cites the heathen poet, Aratus, in the words, “For we also are his offspring.”[2] Paul quotes, “For we also are his offspring,” in support of his own sentiments. Note his words: “as even some of your own poets have said.” This means that Paul’s use of this heathen poet is not ad hominem. It is not merely due, in other words, to his hearers’ trust in the teaching of these poets. Paul is not quoting heathen poets (with whom he really disagrees) just to make a point in his sermon to the Athenians. He is not merely showing that the Athenians contradict their own writers. Paul clearly attaches some truth to the sentiments quoted. N. B. Stonehouse remarks:
In arguing from the quotations to his Christian conclusions Paul appears unmistakably to be attaching validity to them even while he is taking serious account of their presence within the structure of pagan thought. The formula confirms indeed an observation made previously: it intimates that the quotations are not offered as foundation features of the Pauline proclamation, but only quite subordinately and even incidentally to the main thrust of his address, which stands on strong Biblical ground. The fact remains, however, that at least momentarily, he appears to occupy common ground with his pagan hearers to the extent of admitting a measure of validity to their observations concerning religion. The problem becomes acute when we listen to this quotation in its original context.”[3]
We cannot explain away Paul’s citation of the heathen poets in this way.
It must also be remembered that the words “for in him we live and move and exist” also are the words of a heathen poet. These words from verse 28a are an excerpt from a work of Epimenides the Cretan. Paul also quotes from this same poet and context in Titus 1:12. Therefore, however, these words are brought forward as Paul’s own sentiments–not as a quotation of someone else. F. F. Bruce gives the quatrain from which both quotations are taken.[4]
They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one‑-
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead; thou livest and abidest for ever;
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
Before we attempt to solve the problem raised by Paul’s citing of heathen poets, we must appreciate what a serious problem it is. What makes the problem so serious is that in their original contexts the statements Paul quotes are completely pagan. Both the poets Paul quotes are in their original contexts referring to Zeus![5] N. B. Stonehouse’s statement of the problem is helpful:
The problem is formidable because the quotations in their proper pagan contexts express points of view which were undoubtedly quite repugnant to Paul. How far removed from the Christian theism of Paul, with its doctrine of the sovereignty of the Creator and Lord and of man as created and fallen, were the heathen deification of man or the humanizing of a god, and the pantheistic mysticism of the Stoics, not to dwell on the irreligious scepticism of the Epicureans! Moreover, Paul would appear to be contradicting his evaluation of the Gentiles, which must have included the poets who are quoted, as belonging to the “times of ignorance,” and his judgment upon the religion of Athens as one of ignorance. In spite of the antithesis which in fact existed, and which Paul insists upon, can there be a finding of common ground between him and his pagan audience?”[6]
The point is that it appears that Paul’s quotation of such poets in support of his Christian point of view was incorrect. Stoic pantheism does not support the Christian doctrine of the omnipresence of God. But in its original context the statement, “for we also are his offspring,” had a pantheistic meaning.
The solution to this difficulty can only be supplied from Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:18f and Acts 14:17. These passages teach that men possess a divine revelation which they suppress. Such men, however, often borrowed ideas from this divine revelation which they fitted into their pagan systems. Since such ideas were derived from a divine revelation, Paul can read them back to the Gentiles in support of his teaching. He can do this because Christian teaching allows the divine revelation which the Gentiles suppressed to come to its proper intellectual and ethical expression. N. B. Stonehouse remarks:
As creatures of God, retaining a sensus divinitatis in spite of their sin, their ignorance of God and their suppression of the truth, they were not without a certain awareness of God and of their creaturehood. Their ignorance of, and hostility to, the truth was such that their awareness of God and of creaturehood could not come into its own to give direction to their thought and life or to serve as a principle of interpretation of the world of which they were a part. But the apostle Paul, reflecting upon their creaturehood, and upon their religious faith and practice, could discover within their pagan religiosity evidences that the pagan poets in the very act of suppressing and perverting the truth presupposed a measure of awareness of it. Thus while conceiving of his task as basically a proclamation of One of whom they were in ignorance, he could appeal even to the reflections of pagans as pointing to the true relation between the sovereign Creator and His creatures.”[7]
The relevance of this to our point is clear. In quoting heathen poets to establish his point, Paul virtually teaches that men have a suppressed awareness of the divine character and demands.
II. Paul’s Use of Special Revelation
One of the striking aspects of this address is that it contains no direct or explicit or overt quotations of Scripture. This is a marked contrast to Paul’s address to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13‑52). Since the Gentile Athenians were not those to whom God gave the Old Testament Scriptures, and since as a result they did not formally recognize their divine authority, the fact that Paul does not formally quote Scripture is perfectly understandable.
We must not conclude from this, however, that Paul regarded the Scriptures as unimportant for the Gentiles. We must also not think they lacked power to attest themselves to the Gentiles. We must not think that this is the reason he did not use them in any way in his Gentile evangelism. Such ideas would be completely false. Bahnsen reminds us, “Some Greek texts of Acts 17:24‑29 (e. g., Nestle’s) list up to 22 Old Testament allusions in the margin, thus showing anything but a neglect of the Scriptural word in Paul’s Athenian preaching!”[8] Furthermore, both previously and in the Areopagus’ address itself Paul proclaimed to the Gentiles the peculiar and distinctive content of special, redemptive revelation, “Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18, 30, 31). Bahnsen enlarges upon the scriptural presuppositions of Paul’s address:
In Acts 17:24‑31 Paul’s language is principally based on the Old Testament. There is little justification for the remark of Lake and Cadbury that this discourse used a secular style of speech, omitting quotations from the Old Testament. Paul’s utilization of Old Testament materials is rather conspicuous. For instance, we can clearly see Isaiah 42:5 coming to expression in Acts 17:24‑25, as this comparison indicates: Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it … (Isaiah 42:5). The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth … giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:24, 25).
In the Isaiah pericope the prophet goes on to indicate that the Gentiles can be likened to men with eyes blinded by a dark dungeon (42:7), and in the Areopagus address Paul goes on to say that if men seek after God, it is as though they are groping in darkness (i. e., the sense for the Greek phrase `feel after Him,’ 17:27). Isaiah’s development of thought continues on to the declaration that God’s praise ought not to be given to graven images (42:8), while Paul’s address advances to the statement that `we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by the art and device of men (17:29). It surely seems as though the prophetic pattern of thought is in the back of the apostle’s mind. F. F. Bruce correctly comments on Paul’s method of argumentation before the Areopagus:
“He does not argue from the sort of `first principles’ which formed the basis of the various schools of Greek philosophy; his exposition and defense of his message are founded on the biblical revelation of God … Unlike some later apologists who followed in his steps, Paul does not cease to be fundamentally biblical in his approach to the Greeks, even when (as on this occasion) his biblical emphasis might appear to destroy his chances of success.”
Those who have been trained to think that the apologist must adjust his epistemological authority or method in terms of the mindset of his hearers as he finds them will find the Areopagus address quite surprising in this respect. Although Paul is addressing an audience which is not committed or even predisposed to the revealed scriptures, namely educated Gentiles, his speech is nevertheless a typically Jewish polemic regarding God, idolatry, and judgment![9]
Later in these lectures we will study the doctrine of the self-authentication of the Scriptures. The self-authentication of the Scriptures is simply the idea that the Bible proves itself to be the Word of God without arguments from evidence outside itself. The message itself shows itself to be divine and true. What Paul does here is very significant for that important doctrine. Without apology (!) and without proof Paul requires submission to the gospel message by the Athenians. Nothing could more eloquently convey Paul’s faith in the living power of the Word of God in the gospel. Thus, while there is no formal quotation of the Scriptures or insistence on scriptural authority in Paul’s address, there is everywhere the authoritative proclamation of the material of Scripture, its truth‑content, its message.
We learn from Paul’s method that it is the message–not the form–of Scripture which is self‑authenticating. Paul does not quote the Scripture as authoritative in the same way as he would have with the Jews. He does not say Isaiah or David said. Yet he does preach its message boldly and with authority to Gentiles who did not acknowledge its authority. This gives us the right also to proclaim without apology or embarrassment the truth of the gospel even to those who do not acknowledge the formal authority of Scripture.
III. Paul’s Method of Presenting the Truth
A. His Opposing Stand
What I mean by this is that Paul takes the position of an adversary or enemy of the pagan system of thought. He does not try to make common cause with the pagan polytheism. He rejects any idea of a common ground which he shares with the pagan polytheism. He regards the essence and direction of Christianity and the Greek religion as completely opposite. Paul believes that they have suppressed and perverted every truth by means of their system. Two things make this clear: (1) His indignation in verse 16 (Their religion made him angry.) (2) His charge of ignorance in verse 23 (He regards their religion as empty of true knowledge of God. He regards them as requiring his instruction in the most elementary truths about God.).
But if Paul’s conduct makes clear his method of taking a stand opposing Paganism, so also does the Athenian response to him. Bahnsen explains:
Paul was well aware of the philosophical climate of his day. Accordingly he did not attempt to use premises agreed upon by the philosophers, and then pursue a `neutral’ method of argumentation to move them from the circle of their beliefs into the circle of his own convictions. When he disputed with the philosophers they did not find any grounds for agreement with Paul at any level of their conversations. Rather, they utterly disdained him as a `seedpicker,’ a slang term (originally applied to gutter‑sparrows) for a peddler of second‑hand bits of pseudo‑philosophy‑‑an intellectual scavenger (v. 18). The word of the cross was foolish (I Cor. 1:20‑21). Hence Paul would not consent to use their verbal `wisdom’ in his apologetic, lest the cross of Christ be made void (I Cor. 1:17) . … Paul rejected the thinking of the philosophers in order that he might educate them in the truth of God. He did not attempt to find common beliefs which would serve as starting points for an uncommitted search for whatever gods there may be. His hearers certainly did not recognize commonness with Paul’s reasoning; they could not discern an echo of their own thinking in Paul’s argumentation. Instead, they viewed Paul as bringing strange, new teaching to them (vv. 18‑20). They apparently viewed Paul as proclaiming a new divine couple: `Jesus’ (a masculine form that sounds like the Greek iasis) and `Resurrection’ (a feminine form), being the personified powers of `healing’ and`restoration.’ These `strange deities’ amounted to`new teachings’ in the eyes of the Athenians. Accusing Paul of being a propagandist for new deities was an echo of the nearly identical charge brought against Socrates four and a half centuries earlier. It surely turned out to be a more menacing accusation than the name `seed‑picker.’ As introducing foreign gods Paul could not simply be disdained, he was also a threat to Athenian well-being. And that is precisely why Paul ended up before the Areopagus council. In the same city which had tried Anaxagoras, Protagoras, and Socrates for introducing `new deities,’ Paul was under examination for setting forth `strange gods’ (vv. 18‑20). The kind of apologetic for the resurrection which he presented is a paradigm for all Christian apologists. It will soon be apparent that he recognized that the fact of the resurrection needed to be accepted and interpreted in a wider philosophical context, and that the unregenerate’s system of thought had to be placed in antithetic contrast with that of the Christian. Although the philosophers had used disdainful language (v. 18), verses 19‑20 show them expressing themselves in more refined language before the Council. They politely requested clarification of a message which had been apparently incomprehensible to them. They asked to be made acquainted with Paul’s strange new teaching and to have its meaning explained. Given their own world-views, the philosophers did not think that Paul’s outlook made sense.[10]
The application of this to ourselves is clear. We must be very careful, especially in our day, not to allow men to think that we are in fundamental agreement with them. We must make it clear that Christianity and their systems are completely different and at war with one another. While men have truth, they have no truth that is not either suppressed or perverted. We must never convey any approval of their systems. Sometimes this can be very difficult in our day because the relativism (the teaching that there is no such thing as truth or an absolute right and wrong) and humanism (the teaching that makes man the goal and standard of all things) and tolerance of modern thinking have trained men to be open and accepting of everything. They think of this as the greatest virtue. Thus, many will make every attempt to agree with you. All the while, however, they are fitting what you say into their humanistic and relativistic framework or system.
B. His Deeper Appeal
We have just finished saying that we must openly and clearly oppose all non-Christian systems of thought. We must make it clear that there is no common or neutral ground between Christianity and paganism. Yet at the same time it is clear from Paul’s address that in a deeper sense there is common ground with the natural man. We can appeal to the truth men have suppressed or perverted. Often through common grace men will make admissions or take positions that will give us a point of contact. Acts 17:23 provides a perfect illustration of how Paul took stunning advantage of such unintentional admissions. When the Athenians built altars to unknown gods, the last thing they intended to do or thought they were doing was to make an admission of religious ignorance. The Athenians didn’t intend for Paul to make this use of their altars to the unknown god. Yet, clearly, these altars were an admission of religious ignorance. Thus, Paul uses what they admit against them.
Unbelieving men will also often borrow truth from the divine revelation they are suppressing and fit it into their perverse system. Because the native and original meaning of that truth is proper and true, we may appeal to it against the very pagan systems into which it has been fitted. We must, however, be careful to alter the intended pagan meaning. This is what Paul did when he quoted the heathen poets.
C. His Authoritative Claims
One of the most pronounced features of Paul’s address is his claim to religious authority. Several things make clear that Paul was claiming great authority before these Gentiles.
- His emphatic assertion that he was able to instruct their (Athenian!) ignorance. In verse 23 note the Greek phrase, ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν. Literally translated this phrase means, `I myself declare to you.’
- His parallel assertion in verse 30 that God was declaring to men that they should repent. Note also verse 23. The parallel makes clear that Paul was claiming to be God’s mouthpiece in this declaration. He thus claimed divine authority.
- The word Paul uses in verse 23 means to solemnly proclaim or preach.[11] It is frequently used to designate the apostolic proclamation. N. B. Stonehouse remarks: “Special interest in this connection attaches to the verb which Paul employs in verse 23 in introducing his proclamation. The verb, καταγγέλλω, is used frequently in the Acts and the Pauline Epistles of the official apostolic proclamation of the gospel. “The word of God” is proclaimed by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13: 5, 15:36, 17:13); “the testimony of God” as proclaimed to the Corinthians (I Cor. 1:21); “the gospel” is that which is proclaimed by divine appointment (I Cor. 9:14); “Jesus” (Acts 4:2, 17:13) and “Christ” (Phil. 117, 18; Col. 1:27f) likewise sum up the divine message ( also Acts 3:8; I Cor. 11:26). That the publication of the apostolic message was viewed as claiming direct divine authority is furthermore confirmed by the use of the same verb in describing the proclamation beforehand of Christ by the prophets (Acts 3:24; 3:18, 22).”[12]
- It is precisely in the book of Acts that Paul’s divine appointment as an apostle to the Gentiles is repeatedly emphasized 26:15‑18, 22:14,15, 9:15. Thus, in the address to the Areopagus Paul performs one of the most characteristic functions of the apostolate. He witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (1:22).
All of these things make clear that Paul was confronting these Gentiles with strong claims to divine authority for his message. We are not apostles, but we do proclaim an apostolic message. We, therefore, must not water down its authoritative claims either by a hesitant manner or by an uncertain matter. We must be bold. We must never for a moment give any one the impression that the truth of God is in doubt, merely probable, or only one possible alternative. Paul never pretends for a moment that the truth he proclaims about God and the gospel is anything but absolute truth. We must like Paul run the risk of being thought pompous and arrogant.
D. His Ethical Focus
Paul’s proclamation of the nature of God comes quickly to an ethical focus in verses 29‑31. Even before this in verse 25 and verse 27 he has made practical applications of the truth. This is an example for us that a proper apologetic makes its focus not the secondary intellectual problems of men, but their conscience. The ethical duty of men is the primary issue. We will be wise to follow this example and not disguise the real issue.
E. His Asserted Proof
No survey of the apologetic significance of the Address to the Areopagus would be complete if it failed to notice Paul’s appeal to the resurrection as proof of his message. Paul preached that God had appointed a day in which He would judge the world through a certain man. God had furnished proof of this by raising that man from the dead.
The words, “furnish proof,” mean literally, “give faith.” The word translated furnish, grant, or give is used of God in only one other place in the New Testament (1 Tim. 6:17). The word translated proof here is the common word for faith. This is its only occurrence with this meaning in the New Testament. It designates a means of belief (Eadie) and, thus, (Lenski) a trustworthy assurance or evidence. Paul’s appeal to the “resurrection was the final authentication of the message” he preached (Blaiklock).
Care is necessary here if we are not to misinterpret the meaning of this use of the resurrection of Christ for our defense of the faith.[13] There are two differences which are important to notice between Paul’s proof and modern proofs of the gospel. What Paul is doing here is different from what many defenders of the faith do in our day. They give proof for the resurrection. Paul presents the resurrection as proof. They argue for the resurrection. Paul argues from the resurrection.[14]
Paul’s “proof” can only be appreciated in the proper presuppositional framework. We must not forget that before addressing the subject of “Jesus and the resurrection,” Paul lays out that framework in the preceding verses. It is the doctrine of the existence and character of the living God.[15] The proof of the resurrection of Christ is proof only on the presupposition that the living God exists. We must approach the resurrection of Christ within this framework or context. Even if men accept the mere fact that Christ came back to life, without this presupposition it will prove nothing to them. Instead of worshipping God and trusting in Christ, they may say, `The world is a strange place. Strange things do happen.’ The resurrection proves the gospel message, because it was the living God who raised Him from the dead.
[1]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 21.
[2]F. F. Bruce, Acts, 359-360.
[3]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 29.
[4]ibid.
[5]ibid.
[6]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 27f.
[7]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 30.
[8]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 8.
[9]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 30, 31.
[10]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 14, 15, 17, 18.
[11]Cf. BAG.
[12]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 24.
[13]My concern is that we not see in this biblical support for “Evidentialism.”
[14]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 35-36. Bahnsen accurately notes: “To be accurate, it is important for us to note that the resurrection was evidence in Paul’s argumentation, it was not the conclusion of his argumentation. He was arguing, not for the resurrection, but for final judgment by Christ. The misleading assumption made by many popular evangelical apologists is that Paul here engaged in an attempted proof of the resurrection ‑‑ although nothing of the sort is mentioned by Luke. Proof by means of the resurrection is mistakenly seen in verse 31 as proof of the resurrection. Paul proclaimed that Christ had been appointed the final Judge of mankind, as His resurrection from the dead evidenced. The Apostle did not supply an empirical argument for the resurrection to the final judgment. For Paul, even in apologetical disputes before unbelieving philosophers, there was no authority more ultimate than that of Christ. This epistemological attitude was most appropriate in light of the fact that Christ would be the ultimate judge of man’s every thought and belief.”
[15]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 19. Bahnsen comments: “Next we see that Paul’s approach was to speak of basic philosophical perspectives. The Athenians had specifically asked about the resurrection, but we have no hint that Paul replied by examining various alternative theories (e. g., Jesus merely swooned on the cross,the disciples stole the body, etc.) and then by countering them with various evidences (e. g., a weak victim of crucifixion could not have moved the stone; liars do not become martyrs; etc. in order to conclude that `very probably’ Jesus arose. No, nothing of the sort appears here. Instead, Paul laid the presuppositional groundwork for accepting the authoritative word from God, which was the source and context of the good news about Christ’s resurrection. Van Til comments:
It takes the fact of the resurrection to see its proper framework and it takes the framework to see the fact of the resurrection; the two are accepted on the authority of Scripture alone and by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Without the proper theological context, the resurrection would simply be a monstrosity or freak of nature, absurd resuscitation of a corpse. Such an interpretation would be the best that the Athenian philosophers could make of the fact. However, given the monism or determinism, or materialism, or the philosophy of history entertained by the philosophers in Athens, they could intellectually
find sufficient grounds, if they wished, for disputing even the fact of the resurrection. It would have been futile for Paul to argue about the facts, then, without challenging the unbelievers’ philosophy of fact.”
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 10, 2025 | Apologetics
*Editor’s Note: The following material is the fifteenth of Dr. Sam Waldron’s 20-part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. Click on the following numbers to read the accompanying parts of this series:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
Apologetic Observations from Acts 17
Previously, we have examined the doctrine of our knowledge of God from Paul’s treatment of it in Romans 1 and 2. In response to the exposition of those passages, someone might well ask such questions as these: How does this work out in practice? You have talked about a seemingly technical distinction between two kinds of knowledge. Is this distinction really important? How does one apply it practically? These are important questions. Thankfully, we are not left to guess at their answers. The same Paul who gave his theological statement about the Gentiles’ knowledge of God in Romans 1 and 2 practically applied this theology in Acts 17:16‑34. Paul himself shows us how his theory is to be applied. In Acts 17:16‑34 Paul addresses the very people he wrote about in Romans 1:18f., natural men with no practical knowledge of special revelation. Considering the brevity or shortness of the book of Acts, Luke devotes an extraordinary amount of space to Paul’s time at Athens. He evidently regarded it as one of the high points of Paul’s ministry. As he stood before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and as he will stand before the Emperor in Rome, so he now stands before the Areopagus, the seat and center of Greek learning, at Athens. Luke intends to give us in this passage an example of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. F. F. Bruce says, “If the address at Pisidian Antioch in ch. 13:16ff. is intended to be a sample of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel to Jewish and God‑fearing audiences, the present address may well be intended as a sample of his approach to pagans.”[1] Bruce’s wise statement suggests that two common views of the passage which subtract from its value as an example for us are false.
(1) The fact that Acts 17 is intended as an example or model of Paul’s ministry to pagans suggests that the view is wrong which asserts that Paul later doubted the wisdom of the way he defended the faith he used in Athens. This wrong view is often introduced by the assertion that the response to this address was unusually discouraging. Then those who take this view say that Paul reconsidered his method as a result. Ramsay, for example, says,
It would appear that Paul was disappointed and perhaps disillusioned by his experience in Athens. He felt that he had gone at least as far as was right in the way of presenting his doctrine in a form suited to the current philosophy; and the result had been little more than naught. When he went on from Athens to Corinth, he no longer spoke in the philosophic style. In replying afterwards to the unfavorable comparison between his preaching and the more philosophical style of Apollos, he told the Corinthians that, when he came among them, he `determined not to know anything save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified’ (I Cor. 2:2); and nowhere throughout his writings is he so hard on the wise, the philosophers, and the dialecticians [those who teach and practice logic‑-SW], as when he defends the way in which he had presented Christianity at Corinth. Apparently the greater concentration of purpose and simplicity of method in his preaching at Corinth is referred to by Luke, when he says, 18:5, that when Silas and Timothy rejoined him there, they found him wholly possessed by and engrossed in the Word. This strong expression, so unlike anything else in Acts, must on our hypothesis be taken to indicate some specifically marked character in the Corinthian preaching.”[2]
Ramsay is completely mistaken. I say this for the following reasons.
First, Ramsay’s theory forgets or undermines Paul’s apostolic authority. As an apostle Paul’s preaching and his methods are both the rule for us.
Second, it contradicts Luke’s clear purpose in enlarging on Paul’s ministry in Athens. Bahnsen comments:
What Luke portrays for us by way of summary in Acts 17:16‑34 can confidently be taken as a speech of the Apostle Paul, a speech which reflected his inspired approach to Gentiles without the Bible, a speech consistent with his earlier and later teachings in the epistles. His approach is indeed an exemplar to us. It was specially selected by Luke for inclusion in his summary history of the early apostolic church. Apart from the brief summary of the discourse at Lystra …, the address at Athens provides our only evidence of the apostle’s direct approach to a pagan audience.” With respect to the author’s composition of Acts, Martin Dibelius argues: “In giving only one sermon addressed to Gentiles by the great apostle to the Gentiles, namely the Areopagus speech in Athens, his primary purpose is to give an example of how the Christian missionary should approach cultured gentiles.” And in his lengthy study, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, Gartner correctly asks this rhetorical question: “How are we to explain the many similarities between the Areopagus speech and the Epistles if the speech did not exemplify Paul’s customary sermons to the Gentiles?” In the encounter of Jerusalem with Athens as found in Paul’s Areopagus address, we thus find that it was genuinely Paul who was speaking, and that Paul was at his best. Scripture would have us, then, strive to emulate his method.[3]
Third, it forgets, as we shall see, that Paul’s address is squarely built on the theology of Romans 1 and 2. We cannot say that Paul later doubted his method in Acts 17 without saying that he also reconsidered the theology of Romans 1 and 2.
Fourth, this theory fails to recognize that the results were really not unusually discouraging. Paul always met opposition and scorn. Those in verse 32 who want to hear Paul again may be viewed as sincerely interested‑-rather than people who are merely avoiding Paul and his preaching. Finally, the conversion of Dionysius was a great triumph of the gospel. Lenski says, “One of these was no less a person than Dionysius, the Areopagite, one of the twelve judges of the Athenian Court. That was, indeed, a sign of victory.”[4] Later tradition makes him first bishop of Athens.
(2) Acts 17 is actually a model of Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles. If this view of Acts 17 is correct, it manifests the unacceptable character of the view that says that Paul was interrupted before he finished his speech.
As I have just intimated, some have suggested that Paul was interrupted before he could finish his address. On the basis of this idea they have gone on to argue that the speech of Acts 17 is unfinished and imbalanced. Their theory is that Acts 17 is a mere beginning of what Paul would have wanted to say.
This is most unlikely. The words recorded in Acts 17 are clearly a mere summary by Luke of a much longer speech of Paul. It only takes a minute or two to read the speech as it stands in Acts. It is hard to believe that Paul only spoke a minute or two to the Areopagus before being interrupted. Further, there is no clear evidence that he was interrupted before he was done. The reactions of verse 32 probably came after Paul had concluded. Verses 30 and 31 naturally conclude Paul’s address by giving a summary of the gospel. Clearly, Paul said much more than what is actually recorded here.[5] The words recorded in Acts 17 are intended as a summary or epitome of Paul’s address.
Our treatment of this model of Paul’s preaching to raw pagans will be organized under two headings as follows:
I. Expository Comments
II. Apologetic Observations
I. Expository Comments
The theme of this passage is Paul’s Ministry to Athens: The Address to the Areopagus
A. Verses 16‑21: The Occasion of the Address
i. Paul’s Indignation (v. 16)
It is likely that Paul regarded his time at Athens while he waited for Timothy and Silas as a “breather” or short time of rest before going to other fields of ministry.[6] Verse 16 tells us that as Paul looked around the city his spirit was provoked within him. (The NIV translates greatly distressed.) While sometimes this word may merely mean to urge on or stimulate, it mainly means anger or indignation. This is its meaning here. Note Acts 15:39; I Corinthians 13:5; and in the LXX Old Testament Hosea 8:5; Zechariah 10:3. N. B. Stonehouse says:
The special circumstances in Athens merely provided the occasion for Paul’s deep indignation; his fervent monotheism was the actual cause of it. And it is not without significance that the word which Luke employs to indicate Paul’s feeling is frequently used in the LXX where the Lord is described as being provoked to anger at the idolatry of His people. The zeal of the Lord was eating up His servant Paul, and he was constrained to break his silence in the presence of the presumption of pagan worship.[7]
As Paul observed the signs and tokens of the Athenians unusually zealous idolatry (their zealous idolatry is supported by ancient history), he was deeply provoked and angry.
ii. Paul’s Action (v. 17)
Paul’s indignation was not empty. It moved him to action. This is the importance of godly anger. It moves us to action.[8] What Paul did was to reason, discuss, and perhaps even debate with the Jews in their synagogues and more significantly with the Gentiles in the marketplace.
iii. Athenian Reaction
a. Its Representatives: “the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” (v. 18)
The Epicureans taught that the goal of life was pleasure. While this made them a refuge for many seeking an excuse for their sensualism or the indulgence of their fleshly appetites, Epicureanism actually taught that pleasure consisted in a life of quietness and tranquility. They agreed that the peace and calm of life might be ruined or marred by an overindulgent sensualism. While they believed in the Greek gods, they denied that they had created the world, that they had any interest in men, and that there was any such thing as life after death. They were, thus, practical atheists.
The Stoics were pantheists. They believed that God was the great soul which inhabited the universe. Each man was a little universe. His soul was a divine spark imparting life to his body. Their ethical philosophy was to live according to nature. This involved a stern bravery indifferent to grief and adversity, moral earnestness, and a high sense of duty.
b. Its Character (v. 18b)
There were two closely related responses to Paul. The first was scorn. Literally, they called Paul a seed picker–a slang reference to gutter sparrows.[9] The second was confusion (vv. 18b‑20).
c. Its Result (v. 19)
As a result of this scorn and confusion Paul was called to stand before the court of the Areopagus and explain himself. Bahnsen explains:
Luke tells us that Paul was `brought before the Areopagus’ (v. 19). The AREIOS PAGOS literally means `the hill of Ares’ (or `Mars hill’); however, his referent is not likely to a geographical feature in the local surrounding of the agora. THE COUNCIL OF THE AREOPAGUS was a venerable commission of the ex‑magistrates which took its name from the hill where it originally convened. In popular parlance its title was shortened simply to `the Areopagus,’ and in the first century it had transferred its location to the Stoa Basileios (or `Royal Portico’) in the city marketplace‑‑where the Platonic dialogues tell us that Euthyphro went to try his father for impiety and where Socrates had been tried for corrupting the youth with foreign deities. Apparently the Council convened on Mar’s hill in Paul’s day only for trying cases of homicide. That Paul `stood in the midst of the Areopagus’ (v. 22) and `went out from their midst’ (v. 33) is much easier understood in terms of his appearance before the Council than his standing on the hill (Acts 4:7).[10]
d. Its Motivation: vv. 20, 21
Why did the Greeks call Paul to stand before this council and explain his teaching? The reason was probably somewhere between a friendly request to hear his teaching and trial before the court. Bahnsen remarks:
Paul appeared before the Areopagus Council for a reason that probably lies somewhere between that of merely supplying requested information and that of answering to formal charges. After indicating the questions and requests addressed to Paul before the Areopagus, Luke seems to offer the motivation for this line of interrogation in verse 21 ‑‑ the proverbial curiosity of the Athenians. And yet the language used when Luke says in verse 19 that `they took hold of him’ is more often than not in Acts used in the sense of arresting someone (16:19; 18:17; 21:30 ‑‑ although not always, as in 9:27, 23:19). We must remember that Luke wrote the book of Acts while Paul had been awaiting trial in Rome for two years (Acts 28:30‑31). His hope regarding the Roman verdict was surely given expression in the closing words of his book ‑‑that Paul continued to preach Christ, `none forbidding him.’ An important theme pursued by Luke in the book of Acts is that Paul was continually appearing before a court, but never with a guilty verdict against him. Quite likely, in Acts 17 Paul is portrayed by Luke as again appearing before a court without sentencing. Had there been the legal formality of charges against Paul, it is inconceivable that Luke would not have mentioned them or the formal verdict at the end of the trial. Therefore, Paul’s appearance before the Areopagus Council is best understood as an informal exploratory hearing for the purpose of determining whether formal charges ought to be formulated and pressed against him. Eventually none were.[11]
B. Verses 22‑31: The Summary of the Address
As we have said before, it is very likely that what Luke gives us here is simply an accurate summary of Paul’s address‑-not a word for word record of his speech as a complete whole. Paul’s address has for its theme: The Nature of God. It has three sections.
Introduction: Their Ignorance of God, vv. 22, 23
Delineation: The True Nature of God, vv. 24‑29
Conclusion: The Gospel of God, vv. 30‑31
There is an ABA structure in this discourse which we must not miss. Paul first deals with their ignorance of God. (Note in vv. 22 and 23 the emphasis on their ignorance of God.) He then asserts the truth about God. He then returns to their ignorance (Note in v. 30, the phrase, “times of ignorance”) and calls them to repent of their ignorant idolatry in light of the assertions of vv. 24‑29.
i. Introduction, vv. 22 and 23
a. First Comment.
The term used by Paul in verse 22 (translated in the NASB and NIV by the words, “very religious,”) has several shades of meaning. It may be used in a good sense to mean proper reverence for God or godliness. It may be used in a bad sense to mean superstition. It may be used in a neutral or non‑committal sense to mean religion. The question is this: Is Paul saying that they are very godly, very superstitious, or very religious? Paul did not believe the first. He was not so tactless as to say the second at the opening of his address. He must, therefore, mean the third. Here we see in Paul an example of the courtesy, respect, and gentleness required in 1 Peter 3:15.[12]
b. Second Comment
History tells us that there were altars to unknown gods in Athens. Paul makes this fact his point of departure. He regards these altars as an implicit confession of ignorance of the deity. Paul (as translated by the NASB) says, “I also found an altar with this inscription, `TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance this I proclaim to you.” The NIV makes clear by its translation that the two words, unknown and ignorance (as translated by the NASB), used in these phrases are related.[13] It translates the phrases in which they occur as “the unknown god” and “what you as unknown worship.”
ii. Delineation
Verses 24‑29 contain Paul’s proclamation of God’s true nature. It is difficult for me to discern the exact structure of Paul’s thought in these verses. It is clear, however, that Paul is determined to emphasize several very important and immediately relevant points to his Athenian hearers about God, their relationship to Him, and how He should be worshiped.
Generally speaking, these three concerns are taken up respectively in verses 24 and 25, verses 26-28, and verse 29. Verses 24 and 25 affirm that God as Creator is sovereign and self-sufficient and, thus, not in need of the temples or service of men. Verses 26-28 affirm that mankind’s relationship to God is characterized by complete dependence. He made the nations appointing both their times and their boundaries. He so disposed them that they might seek God, even though in another sense they are God’s offspring and always confronted with His existence. Verse 29 concludes from the fact that God is the self-sufficient and sovereign Creator and from the fact that man is God’s offspring–controlled and enveloped by God–that idolatry is intellectually and ethically indefensible.
iii. Conclusion
Here Paul comes to proclaim that God has brought in a new period of time in which He is in the gospel calling all men to repentance. Paul says that God overlooked the times of ignorance. This statement raises many questions in our minds. It is best understood by considering it first negatively and then positively.
Negatively‑-What does it not mean? (1) It does not mean that God was indifferent to their sin. Their ignorance was blameworthy. Note verse 29, “they ought not to think,” (Acts 14:16). (2) It does not mean that God will not one day judge them for their sin (Rom. 2:12).
Positively‑-What does it mean? It simply means that God permitted them to go on in their ignorant, sinful idolatry without bringing on the nations a complete, temporal, historical judgment. The flood of Noah’s day was the classic instance of such a temporal judgment. Paul is primarily thinking of nations and history, not individuals and eternity. Paul means that God purposed to send the nations the gospel before the day of judgment. Hence, he overlooked their sins–not in the sense of forgiving them, but in the sense of not accounting their sins as a reason for not sending them the gospel.
C. The Response to the Address (vv. 32-34)
The response, as already mentioned, was not unusually discouraging. Rather, there is a hint of gospel triumph in Luke’s account.
[1]F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 354f.
[2]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 32.
[3]Greg Bahnsen, The Journal of Ashland Theological Seminary, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 8-9. Note also Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 33.
[4]Lenski, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 740.
[5]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 38. N. B. Stonehouse remarks: “As applied to the situation confronting us here, this observation suggests that Luke means to imply that the message of salvation through Christ is being intimated in epitome in Paul’s proclamation of the divine command that all men everywhere should repent. “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked, but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent; inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he raised him from the dead” (verses 30, 31).”
[6]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 5.
[7]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 6f.
[8]Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, en loc.
[9]Bruce, Acts, 35.
[10]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 16.
[11]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,”, 17.
[12]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 19. Bahnsen properly remarks: “It must first be noted that Paul’s manner of addressing his audience was respectful and gentle. The boldness of his apologetic did not become arrogance. Paul `stood’ in the midst of the Council which would have been the customary attitude of an orator. And he began his address formally, with a polite manner of expression, `You men of Athens.’ The magna carta of Christian apologetics, I Peter 3:15, reminds us that when we offer a reasoned defense of the hope within us, we must do so `with meekness and respect.’ Ridicule, anger, sarcasm, and name‑calling are inappropriate weapons of apologetical defense. A Spirit‑filled apologist will evidence the fruits of the Spirit in his approach to others.”
[13] N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 19, translates, “that which ye worship acknowledging openly your ignorance, I proclaim to you.”
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 10, 2025 | Apologetics
*Editor’s Note: The following material is the fourteenth of Dr. Sam Waldron’s 20-part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. Click on the following numbers to read the accompanying parts of this series:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
Apologetic Observations from Romans 2
I. The Context of the Passage
The general subject of Romans 2:1‑16 is the coming judgment of God on men in general. Verse 11 states the rule that in this judgment there will be no partiality. There will be no “respect of persons”, (lit. according to Lenski) “taking a man’s face.” Note that verses 12, 13, 14 all begin with the word, “for.” This shows that verses 12‑15 are intended to support or prove the assertion of verse 11.
Verse 12 supports the assertion that there is no partiality with God by the fact that God deals with men according to the law they possessed.[1] As will be shown subsequently, verses 14 and 15 are immediately connected with verse 12a. The statement that those who sin without the law perish without the law is a simple assertion, but it raises several pressing questions. The questions raised are these: How can men sin, let alone perish, without the law? Verses 14 and 15 are intended to answer these questions.
II. The Structure of the Passage
The passage in view here is verses 12-16. This structure may seem difficult at first glance. Two considerations simplify it and show its interesting and logical character.
A. Verse 16 connects directly with verse 12.
Verses 13‑15 are parenthetical. In other words, they break up the flow of thought between verse 16 and verse 12. This is shown by the fact that verse 16 does not connect naturally or easily with verse 15. Why? Because the time period of verse 15 is the present, while verse 16 begins with the words “In the day” by which it designates the future day of judgment. This has led commentators to resort to several unnatural and awkward ways of making a direct connection between verse 16 and verse 15. Sometimes they have explained the phrase, “in the day,” as “until the day” (Calvin). Others have interpreted it to mean “in connection with the day” (Lenski). These understandings of this phrase are unusual, unnatural, and unnecessary. On the other hand, the connection with verse 12 is natural and straightforward.
This connection of verse 16 with verse 12 gives a natural and straightforward meaning. (In further support of this connection is the fact that verses 13‑15 explain verse 12. This fits the thesis that they are parenthetical in character.)
B. Verses 12‑15 have an ABBA (chiastic) structure.
What is an ABBA or chiastic structure? Chiastic is derived from the Greek letter which is shaped like the letter X. Note the diagram below.
v. 12a A‑-Those without the law perish.
v. 12b B‑-Those under the law perish.
v. 13 B‑-v. 12b explained and justified
v. 14, 15 A‑-v. 12a explained and justified
Note that the subjects of the A sections are the same and that the subjects of the B sections are the same.
v. 12a A‑-Those without law
v. 12b B‑-Those with law
v. 13 B‑-Those with law
v. 14, 15 A‑-Those without law
Note how verse 14 connects naturally with verse 12a. “For all who have sinned without law will perish without law … For when Gentiles who do not have the law …” We are interested in verses 12a, 14, and 15 because those sections deal with those without special revelation and how they know the law.
III. The Theme of the Passage
This theme is how God can be just in the sending to hell those who never had special revelation (what Paul describes here as the law). Paul in solving this problem is going to speak of the knowledge which makes it right to punish those without the law. It is this knowledge that is precisely the point we are interested in. We are, therefore, not taking Paul out of context. We are not asking the wrong question of this passage.
IV. The Outline of the Exposition of the Passage
- The Fact Stated (v. 12a)
- The Objection Assumed
- The Answer Elaborated (vv. 14, 15)
A. The Fact Stated (v. 12a)
i. The Interpretation of the Clause
Here I simply want to answer the question, What does the text mean?
a. The Meaning of “Without Law”
The normal meaning of this word is lawlessly in the sense of sinfully (Rom. 4:7, 6:19).[2] This is obviously not the meaning here. Here without law means to be outside the circle of special revelation (1 Cor. 9:21). Murray says, “The contrast is therefore between those who were outside the pale of special revelation and those who were within.”[3]
b. The Character of the Judgment
The judgment in view in both halves of verse 12 refers only to a judgment involving punishment. It is the judgment of condemnation. In proof of this note, first, the parallel between “perish” and “be judged.” Note, second, that the word “sinned” is repeated twice. This is judgment only of those who are, as to the summary of their lives, sinners. The result of this judgment, therefore, can only be condemnation and punishment.
c. The Meaning of “Sinned”
The tense is of this verb is the aorist past tense. This means two things.
(1) The standpoint of the verse is the day of judgment. It is only from the viewpoint of the judgment that the lives of all sinners may be viewed as already past.
(2) The entirety of the conduct of the persons is summed up in one word. Lenski, says “the aorists … sum up the whole course of works …”[4] Not one act, but a whole course of life is in view.
d. The Emphasis on Strict Justice
Note the emphasis on the exact justice, the precise correspondence or similarity of God’s judgment to man’s sin. There is correspondence at two points. (1) As to the manner of their perishing, they sinned without law, they also perish without law. (2) As to the identity of those perishing, all who sin, also perish. All means as many as, no more, no less.
ii. The Doctrine of the Clause
a. Those without special revelation can and do sin. “Specially revealed law is not the precondition of sin.”[5]
b. Those without special revelation sin and as a result perish. It is not merely that they are worthy of perishing.
They actually or really perish. Notice that one does not need to hear the gospel to sin and perish. Men do sin and actually perish who have never heard the gospel. This has several important applications: (1) Hearing the gospel is no one’s right. God has a perfect warrant to send people to hell without giving them the gospel. (2) It is sometimes said that man’s only sin is unbelief or failure to believe the gospel. It is said, “It is not the sin question, but the Son question.” This saying is false. Men do not go to hell only for rejecting Christ. (3) The implication of this verse seems to be that all those who live and die without the special revelation of the gospel perish in their sins. Is this true? Do all those without law, without special revelation, sin and perish? Or do some obey and not perish? Is there salvation without the gospel? Several considerations will help us answer this question. First, notice, as Murray says, that “there is no suggestion … that any who are `without law’ attain to … eternal life.”[6] Some have used this text to teach this, but it does not teach any such thing. Second, notice that there are other texts which teach that all men are sinners. Some of them are in this immediate context (Rom. 3:9‑20). It is true that there is no clear assertion in Romans 2:12a that all who are without law sin and perish. Yet, if we combine the other texts which teach that all men sin with our text, the conclusion must be that all those who are without special revelation perish in their sins. Notice the logic:
Major Premise: All who sin without the law perish.
Minor Premise: All do sin who are without the law.
Conclusion: All who are without the law perish.
Third, notice that there are other clear texts which teach that the only means of escape from the wrath of God revealed against all men is the gospel (Rom. 1:16, 17; 3:21; 10:14f). Therefore, we must conclude that there is no salvation apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must remember that this gospel can only be known by those within the circle of special revelation. All who live without special revelation must, therefore, die without salvation. Thus, we must say that men have enough light by nature to perish, but not enough to be saved.
c. This perishing proceeds according to strict justice.
The perishing of the Gentiles is not a result of arbitrary sovereignty in which God is free to do anything He wants without question. It is rather an act of God’s exact justice. Of course, the idea of perishing “without law” is contrasted here with the idea of perishing within the circle of the law or special revelation. This contrast surely teaches that those without law will experience a less severe judgment than those perishing “under law” (Luke 12:47, 48; Matt. 11:22; 24; Luke 10:14). But we must not forget that less severe hell is still hell. Those without special revelation have enough revelation not only to deserve the judgment of eternal punishment, but to deserve it in strict justice. This warns us against so weakening or watering down our view of general revelation that we cannot explain or rationally justify the eternal punishment of those without special revelation.
B. The Objection Assumed
It is not specifically stated, but Paul assumes an objection to verse 12 a. He clearly is answering this unspoken objection in verses 14 and 15. The objection is this: How can those without the law sin, let alone perish?
i. The Fact of the Objection Assumed
The four times repeated emphasis on being without the law in verses 12a and 14 points to this objection. Paul regards the statement that men sin without law as problematic.
ii. The Validity of the Objection Assumed
Paul regards the objection as valid, having an element of truth. What I mean is that he regards it as growing out of an important truth of God’s Word. This truth is one Paul himself believed and was about to teach in this very letter. This truth is that if one is strictly speaking without the law in every sense, there is no sin, no imputation of sin, and no perishing for sin (Rom. 4:15, 5:13). With this truth in mind, it is natural to ask, If this is so how can those without law perish? The answer to this difficult question is found in verses 14 and 15. Indeed, the answer to this problem is whole point of verses 14 and 15.
C. The Answer Elaborated (vv. 14, 15)
i. Its Initial Assertion (v. 14b)
“these to themselves are law”
[or]
“they are (the) law to themselves”
These words, because they include the main verb and noun of the sentence, are the primary assertion of the passage. All else in verses 14 and 15 is grammatically secondary to this primary or initial assertion. When the question is asked, How is it possible, why is it just, for Gentiles to sin and perish without the law? Paul’s answer is simply that the Gentiles are the law to themselves! This short statement teaches us several things about the Gentiles’ confrontation with the law of God.
a. The Reality of Their Confrontation with the Law
In this clause we come to Paul’s simplest statement of his answer to the problem raised by the assertion of verse 12a. Gentiles sin. Their sin is imputed. They perish in their sin. All this occurs and only may occur, says Paul, because they are confronted with the law of God. Though not confronted with it as a written revelation, they still are confronted with it. They are the law for themselves.
b. The Means of Their Confrontation with the Law
Not only does Paul say that the Gentiles confront themselves with the law, he also reveals the means or medium through which this confrontation occurs. They are “to or for themselves the law”. The meaning of this is made clear by parallel statements in these verses. This law is theirs “by nature” (v. 14a), “the work of the law [is] written in their hearts” (v. 15a). Murray says, “the law of God confronts them and registers itself in their consciousness by reason of what they natively and constitutionally are.”[7]
The relevance of this for Christian apologetics and epistemology should be evident. The apostle teaches that men who are without special revelation confront themselves with the law of God. They cannot plead ignorance of God’s law. The existence of God’s law (and, therefore, of God) does not need to be proved to them by rational argument. Rational argument and special revelation may clarify, may intensify, and may remind them of the demands of God’s law. It is not the origin or basis of their confrontation with God’s law. This is innate and natural.
c. The Identity of the Law with which they are Confronted
It might seem to be (and, in fact, it is) evident from verse 12a that it is the law of God which is here mentioned. Sin is the transgression of the law of God. Perishing takes place only at the hands of an angry God. In the clause under consideration, however, the term, law, does not have the article (t-h-e). Further, in other cases in verses 14 and 15 the term, law, also occurs without the article. The question is, then, How should these occurrences be translated? What does Paul mean by “law” in the statement, “they are law to themselves?” Does he mean law in the abstract? The law of God? Or something else? What law is it with which the Gentiles are confronted?
Before exploring these questions, it will be helpful to place the data clearly before us. There are five occurrences of law in verses 14 and 15. In the Greek three of these occurrences are without the article, but two of these three occurrences are translated with the article by both the NIV and the NASB.
[1] (v. 14) No Article in the Greek “who do not have the law”
[2] (v. 14) Article in the Greek “the things of the law”
[3] (v. 14) No Article in the Greek “these, not having the law”
[4] (v. 14) No Article in the Greek “are a law to themselves”
[5] (v. 15) Article in the Greek “the work of the law”
It is clear from this information that there are three reasons why the article should be supplied in the translation of occurrences [1], [3], and [4] and the reference be understood to be to “the law of God.” First, the term, law, without the article often refers to the law of God specifically and is often translated as if the article were present in Romans (Rom. 2:13, 25, 27, 7:25, 13:8, 10).
Second, when Paul says in verse 14 (in the first and third occurrences) that Gentiles do not “have law”, he cannot mean that they were without law of any kind. They had many laws and many different kinds of law. What they lacked was the written law of God. These occurrences must be, therefore, translated as a specific reference to the law of God.
Third, Paul says twice (in occurrences [2] and [5]) that the law with which the Gentiles are confronted via their own persons is the law of God, i.e., the law of God given to Israel. Note verse 14a, verse 15a.
The occurrence in verse 15a is particularly important because it refers to the law written on stone in the Old Covenant, which is now written on the heart in the New Covenant. This shows the fundamental identity of the law of nature with the law of the Old Covenant and the law of the New Covenant. We are not to make a distinction between Jew and Gentile on the basis of what law they possessed. Both possess the same law. They simply have it in a different form and with a different clarity.[8] Romans 3:2 and 9:3‑5 teach, of course, that having the written law of God was a great advantage and blessing to the Jews. Thus, these passages show that there was a higher degree of clarity and responsibility imparted to men by having the written law. Nevertheless, the difference has to do with the degree of light‑-not the identity of the law they possess.
By way of application we may say that Paul teaches in Romans 2:14, 15 the basic unity, continuity, and identity of the law of creation (nature), the law of the Old Covenant, and the law of the New Covenant. No doubt, there are elements of distinction and difference between God’s commands in these different periods, but Paul emphatically assumes that the unity between them is basic and general.
THE BASIC UNITY OF THE LAW OF GOD IN ALL AGES
THE BEGINNING OF CREATION‑-THE OLD COVENANT‑-THE NEW COVENANT
===============================================================
T H E L A W O F G O D
===============================================================
This rebukes any and all who speak of the doing away of the Old Covenant law without carefully limiting what they mean. In order to abolish the law of the Old Covenant one would have to abolish both the law of nature and the law of the New Covenant.
Fourth, we are now prepared to discuss the translation of occurrence [4]. How should the word, law, in the clause under discussion (“these to themselves are law”) be translated? Since, in the first place, all of the other occurrences in verses 14 and 15 are specific references to the law of God, and since, in the second place, twice in these verses Paul specifically ascribes confrontation with the law of God to Gentiles, we ought to translate the clause under discussion “they are the law to themselves.” They are to themselves, not some law or other, but the law of God.[9] The point of importance in all this is that it shows the extent of the knowledge of the law which Gentiles possess. It is not a mere vestige or remnant of knowledge of the moral law which Paul says that the Gentiles have, but the knowledge of the law of God itself.
ii. Its Rational Explanation (v. 15a)
“in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts”
In this clause Paul reveals why he is sure that the Gentiles are the law to themselves.
a. The subject of the clause
The pronoun used here has a causal force, “because such ones.” Cf. 1:25 for a parallel usage.[10] Thus, the clause should be translated, “because such Gentiles show …” This clause states the reason or support for Paul’s statement that the Gentiles are the law for themselves. They are the law to themselves seeing or because they manifest the work of the law written in their hearts. Note how verse 15a is tied to verse 14a through verse 14b.
b. The predicate of the clause
“show”
This verb designates the external manifestation of an internal reality. The internal reality is the work of the law written in their hearts. They show this internal principle by the reality stated in verse 14a (“they do the things of the law”) and re‑stated in verse 15b (their conscience bearing witness …”).
c. The direct object
“the work of the law written in their hearts”
(1) Note that Paul does not say that the law is written in their hearts. It is the work of the law which is written. In the Greek the word, written, agrees in case with the word, work, not the word, law. Thus, Paul very carefully words his statement so as to avoid saying that Gentiles have the law written on their hearts. This would have meant that they had a part in the blessings of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33) and implied that Gentiles without special revelation are saved. This Paul could not say and would not even imply. While Gentiles are confronted with God and His Law, they do not know the gospel and cannot be saved. The law is not written savingly in their heart.
(2) What, then, does Paul mean by the “work of the law?” There are two choices.
There is the majority view. The best example of one who favors this view is John Murray. According to this view the “work of the law” is simply the work which the law requires of us. Murray says, “Things required and stipulated by the law are written upon the heart.”[11]
There is the minority view. Examples of those who take this view are Beza and Haldane. This view was suggested to me by Greg Nichols. He asserts, “the law’s work is the work that the law does.”
Having for several years held and taught the majority view, I now reject it in favor of the minority view. This view appears clearly better to me for the following reasons:
First, the precise expression used here by Paul is found nowhere else in the Bible. Phrases like “the works of the law” (Rom. 3:20) and “the righteousness of the law” (Rom. 8:4), since they are not strict parallels, cannot be certain evidence in favor of the meaning the work required by the law.
Second, the general context of Romans 2:1‑16 favors the minority view. Paul is thinking of the moralistic and hypocritical tendency of fallen mankind to pass judgment on others, yet practice the very things for which they condemn others. This is the thought of both the preceding and succeeding context. Cf. 2:1‑3 and 2:17‑23. In such a context it is natural to view Paul in verses 14 and 15 as using the same thing as proof of the Gentiles’ moral guilt before God. They show the work of the law, the work which the law itself performs, by their passing judgment on and accusing others.
Third, the phrase, “the things of the law,” is clearly parallel to “the work of the law.” The “things of the law,” however, must be a reference not to the things required by the law, but to the things done by the law. This is the case because in doing the things of the law, they are the law to themselves. This cannot mean that in doing the things the law requires, they are the law. If this were the case, it would follow that by obeying the law, we become the law. This is nonsense and makes nonsense of Paul’s assertion. If, however, the phrase means that in doing the things performed by the law (defining right and wrong, commanding, condemning) they are the law this makes much better sense. The phrase, “the things of the law,” then, means “the things the law does.” Thus, by implication the phrase, “the work of the law,” must mean “the work the law does.”
Fourth, the phrase, “the work of the law written in their hearts,” would logically demand the idea that the promise of the New Covenant has been fulfilled in the case of these Gentiles‑-if it means that what the law requires is written in their hearts. For the promise of the New Covenant is that God would write His Law‑-what it requires, its precepts‑‑on our hearts. Similarly, the phrase, “for when Gentiles do instinctively the things of the law,” would directly imply or even assert that these Gentiles are “the doers of the law” and so, according to verse 13, “will be justified.”
It is true, of course, that Murray and others seek to avoid this evil and false conclusion by making a distinction between “the law written on the heart” and “the work required by the law written on the heart.” Murray also distinguishes between “doing the things of the law” (externally) and “doing the law” (really). As Pastor Nichols says, however, this “boils down to a distinction without a difference.”
Having explained these phrases, it remains to be asked, What is Paul thinking of when he speaks of “the things” and “the work” which the law does? The immediate context clearly suggests the functions of the law which Paul has in mind.
First of all, Paul is thinking of the condemning function of the law. He is thinking of how the Gentiles “pass judgment upon” and “accuse” one another (2:1‑3, 15). Secondly, he is thinking of how the law enables men to know God’s will and approve the essential things and instructs them as to right and wrong (2:17‑19). The law provides men with a divine standard of right and wrong.
It is helpful in forming a clearer idea of this to examine the larger context of this issue in Romans. What does the book of Romans at large teach about the function of the law? When we ask this question, we are reminded that one of the themes of Romans is “the work of the law” (3:20, 4:15, 5:20, 7:5‑13).
The importance of this is that what the law did for the Jews, the Gentiles do for themselves. Their own hearts, natures, and persons enable them to know parts of their ethical duty, and in that light to expose sin in others and pass judgment upon it.[12]
When we remember that Paul is answering the objection that Gentiles cannot sin without law, then we must add that the function of giving men a divine standard of right and wrong is primarily in view here.
iii. Its External Manifestation (v. 14a, v. 15b)
The work of the law is written in the heart of men and as such is in itself invisible to anyone but God. This work, however, is manifested visibly and continually by fallen men. In our passage this manifestation is first stated in verse 14a and then re‑stated in verse 15b. This manifestation is not to be equated with that work of the law written in the heart. The “doing of the things of the law,” “the conscience bearing witness,” “the thoughts accusing or even defending them” all manifest and presuppose the work of the law written in the heart. Because they are manifestations of it, for that very reason they are not to be understood as the same as it. The work of the law is God’s creation. The doing of the things of the law is their sometimes perverted and depraved manifestation of the work of the law. Even in the acts of their conscience, they are truth‑suppressors and, thus, their conscience may be defiled (Titus 1:15).
a. Stated (v. 14a)
This first statement of the manifestation of the work of the law written in the hearts of the Gentiles is that they instinctively and repeatedly do what the law of God does. Since the meaning of this phrase has already been mostly explained, only two remarks are necessary here.
(1) These actions are instinctive.
They are done by nature, that is, via the light available to men apart from special revelation. The emphasis on the person, natures, and hearts of the Gentiles has been noticed already. It speaks of the indestructible knowledge of the law which men possess without special revelation.
(2) These actions are repetitive.
When otan is here employed with the present subjunctive of the verb, do, the Greek lexicon, BDAG, says of this usage that it means “whenever, as often as, every time.” Paul is, thus, not thinking of an isolated instance of doing the things of the law. He is thinking of repeated occasions in which Gentiles do what the law does. Cf. the present tenses in 2:1‑3 where Paul says that those are without excuse who are constantly passing judgment upon others for doing the very things they themselves practice.
b. Re‑stated (v. 15b)
The general connection of verse 15b to the previous statements is clear.[13] The conscience of the Gentiles “shows” or visibly manifests “the work of the law written in their hearts.” Lenski remarks that the grammatical construction in the phrase, “accusing or else (or even) defending them, implies that accusation is more common.”[14] This is what we would expect in light of the reference in this phrase to Romans 2:1‑3. John Murray properly concludes from this clause, “Accusation and excusation, whether of ourselves or others, are activities which evidence moral consciousness and therefore point to our indestructible moral nature, the only rationale of which is the work of the law of God in the heart.”[15]
V. Conclusions
- This passage confirms the teaching of Romans 1 as to the reality of the knowledge of the living God in those without special revelation. “The work of the law is written in their hearts” and, thus, they confront themselves with both the precepts and penalties of the law of God. Thus, they know the one, true, and living God because they know Him specifically in His position as lawgiver. Further, they know this God by nature and by means of their own hearts. Thus, this knowledge must be absolutely universal among those who possess human nature.
- This passage brings to completion the teaching of Romans 1 concerning the source of their knowledge of God. In Romans 1:19, 20 the source of this knowledge is external creation. In Romans 2:15 the thought is added that man’s own nature and heart reveal the knowledge of God. Thus, Kuyper is right when he says that man has a two‑fold office in revelation. He is both a source of and the recipient of revelation. Kuyper says, “If the cosmos is the theatre of revelation, in this theatre man is both actor and spectator.”[16]
- This passage expands the teaching of Romans 1 as to the extent of their knowledge of God by nature and creation. Not only do men know God, but they have an extensive knowledge of the moral requirements of His law. This might be deduced from the fact that men according to Romans 1:18‑20 know the character of the living God. Since the moral law of God is simply the transcript or account of His character as it comes to bear upon or controls the regulation of human conduct, to know God truly is to know something of His law. All this is confirmed by Romans 2:12a, 14, and 15.
It is also confirmed by Romans 1:32, the statement of Paul which leads into Romans 2:1‑16. This verse assumes a thorough knowledge of lengthy portions of the actual content of the commands of God’s moral law. Referring to the extensive list of sins in verses 29‑31, verse 32 asserts of men by nature that they know that “those who practice such things are worthy of death.” This knowledge must, therefore, include revelation as to:
‑‑violations of the Tenth Commandment: “greed” “envy”
‑‑violations of the Ninth Commandment: “deceit” “gossips” “slanderers”
‑‑violations of the Eighth Commandment: “greed” “envy”
‑‑violations of the Sixth Commandment: “malice, murder, strife” “unmerciful”
-‑violations of the Fifth Commandment: “disobedient to parents”
-‑general violations of the first four Commandments “haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful”
Scripture, then, testifies to the idea that along with a knowledge of God and rooted in it, there is a many-sided revelation of the moral requirements of God’s law planted in man by creation.
[1]John Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:69.
[2]This is the only occurrence of the adverb form of this root, but the adjective and noun are used frequently.
[3]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:70.
[4]Lenski, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 157.
[5]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:70.
[6]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:69.
[7]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:79.
[8]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:74.
[9]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:73-74.
[10]For this usage note The New Thayer’s Greek‑English Lexicon, p. 457.
[11]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:75.
[12]Cf. by way of illustration Pastor Nichols’ unpublished lecture notes on the passage, 9-10.
[13]Verse 15b is connected to the foregoing by a genitive absolute participle. The effect of this grammatical construction is that v. 15b modifies v. 15a in a way which is not specified.
[14]Lenski, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans en loc.
[15]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:75-76.
[16]Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 264.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 10, 2025 | Apologetics
*Editor’s Note: The following material is the thirteenth of Dr. Sam Waldron’s 20-part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. Click on the following numbers to read the accompanying parts of this series:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
Apologetic Observations from Romans 1
I. The Knowledge of God
A. Historical Opinion
Classical Apologetics states its estimate of the knowledge men have of God in different ways. Sometimes it asserts that man has the possibility of knowing God through the assistance of the theistic proofs, but has innately no real knowledge of God. At other times it says that man has general notions of God, religion, and ethics, but has no specific or clear knowledge of God without the assistance of the theistic proofs. It tended sometimes to say that men by nature and reason knew or could know that God existed but could not and did not know what He was like. Kuyper, as we have seen, generally denied that there is remaining among natural men any knowledge of God. He taught that the natural principium or source of such knowledge had been distorted and blocked by human sin.
B. Biblical Distinction
These historical approaches to the knowledge of God mentioned above tend to give a single answer to the question of whether men know God. They fail, therefore, to understand or do justice to the crucial distinction which the Bible makes in answering this question. The question, “Do men know God?” cannot be answered correctly with one word. To answer this question with either a “yes” or a “no” is wrong and superficial. When we ask the question, “Do men know God?” to be fully biblical and balanced we must answer, “Yes and No, and in that order.” As we have seen, Romans 1:18‑23 teaches a key distinction with respect to apologetics and the knowledge men have of God.
It teaches that men know God. The evidence for this assertion may be briefly reviewed.
- v. 18 ‑ men suppress the truth
- v. 19 ‑ that which is known about God
- v. 19 ‑ is evident in them
- v. 20 ‑ being understood is clearly seen
- v. 21 ‑ although they knew God
- v. 30 ‑ haters of God
- v. 32 ‑ they know the ordinance of God
It also teaches that men do not know God. Again, the evidence for this assertion may be briefly reviewed.
- v. 21 ‑ heart was darkened
- v. 25 ‑ exchanged truth for lie
- v. 28 ‑ they did not see fit to have God in knowledge
If we are to do justice to both these emphases of the passage, we must distinguish between two kinds or two levels of knowledge. Various terms have been used by defenders of the faith to distinguish these two kinds of knowledge. I will speak of constitutional and intellectual knowledge.[1] Thus, we must compare the “constitutional” knowledge and the “intellectual” knowledge of the natural man.
Van Til (and Reformed and Presuppositional Apologetics following him) makes the crucial distinction of Romans 1:18‑23 between man’s constitutional knowledge of God and his ethical ignorance of God. Note the following diagram:
Classical Apologetics is guilty of underestimating human depravity. By failing to make this distinction it underestimates both the effects of man’s depravity on his knowledge and the amount of light sinned against. Thus, it never indicts man severely enough for his sin. Any time it wishes to stress how much man knows, it must lessen human depravity. Any time it wishes to stress human depravity, it must lessen the clarity of divine revelation to men. Human knowledge of God is like Italian dressing for salads which is composed of two different liquids, vegetable oil and vinegar. By failing to make a difference between these two different things it can never accurately describe either.[2] Thus, it gives too positive a response to the wicked religions and philosophies of the natural man. Thus also, it gives a too vague, general, and low estimate of how much men actually know of the living God. Thus, it never severely enough accuses and charges the natural man with his sin.
Kuyper, on the other hand, has attempted to do justice to how wicked and depraved even the minds and reasons of men are. He has seen clearly that the natural man has no right ethical or intellectual knowledge of God. But without the key distinction of Scripture between intellectual knowledge of God and constitutional knowledge of God, he has concluded that in no sense do men know God. Without intending at all to do it, he has removed the basis for the natural man’s depravity. In attempting to stress his depravity and guilt he has removed its very basis. Another result of his failure to see clearly the distinction between these two kinds of knowledge and the reality of the natural man’s constitutional knowledge of God was his conclusion that apologetics was basically useless.
II. The Depravity of the Fallen Mind
A. Classical Apologetics and Human Reason (Natural Theology)
Human reason is viewed by many Roman Catholic theologians and Classical apologists as at worst wounded. It is not viewed as dead in sin. Men are challenged on the basis of reason alone to construct for themselves a natural theology which will bridge the gap between themselves and the Christian faith. Prior to accepting the gospel and believing in Christ, the Classical apologist assumes that men may be convinced by theistic proofs of the existence and character of God. Thus a reason basically unaffected by the fall of man into sin is made the point of contact for Christian Apologetics.
Reformed and Biblical apologetics assumes that man is totally depraved‑‑including his reason. This is, of course, the teaching of Romans 1:18-23 where man is viewed as a truth-suppressor who uses his reason to justify his wicked refusal to honor and thank God. Thus, Reformed apologetics, rather than making natural reason its ally, confronts human reason with divine demands.
In light of this Warfield’s statements that “Christianity makes its appeal to right reason” and that Christianity is “valid for all normally working minds”[3] must be seen as naive and superficial. Such statements clearly underestimate the effect the sinfulness of human reason has on the apologetic problem. Warfield attributes validity to sinful human reason’s claim that it does not know God. He also assumes that you can deal with sinful human reason without challenging its presuppositions.
B. Abraham Kuyper and Total Depravity (Natural Revelation; Common Grace)
Abraham Kuyper and those of his school have put great stress on the total depravity of the human mind. To emphasize this they have asserted that the natural man has lost all knowledge of God. Thus, when we assert that in a sense men do know God despite their sin, those who have followed Kuyper’s line of thought have accused us of denying total depravity. They have asked, “Aren’t men totally depraved? Isn’t then their knowledge of God depraved—even their constitutional knowledge of God? Doesn’t man’s total depravity mean that they lose this knowledge?”
To such questions I respond with an emphatic No! Why does not total depravity mean that even mankind’s constitutional knowledge of God is depraved or erased? Several considerations will help us see the problem with Kuyper’s thinking.
(1) Man’s constitutional knowledge is the presupposition of total depravity. Unless man knows God, he cannot sin against God. Thus, to say that depravity removes the natural man’s knowledge of God is to say that depravity in effect destroys itself. In other words, when it so depraves men that they cease to know God, they cease to be sinners or depraved.
(2) Man’s constitutional knowledge is not subject to total depravity. Have you ever seen a totally depraved nose? Of course not. But aren’t men totally depraved? Yes, but noses are not subject to depravity. In the same way constitutional knowledge may be suppressed but cannot be depraved.
(3) Man’s constitutional knowledge of God remains in hell when he is not only totally, but even absolutely depraved. Will men know God in hell? Of course, they will. Yet they are absolutely depraved there.
(4) Those who take Kuyper’s position have recognized that some unconverted men do have some remnants of the knowledge of God. But they have argued that the fact that men continue to know God (constitutionally) in their depravity is due to the restraint of common grace. This does not make sense. Romans 1:18-23 teaches that the basis of human guilt before God and being exposed to the wrath of God is man’s constitutional knowledge of God through natural revelation. If such knowledge is due to common grace, this results in the very strange idea that it is God’s common grace which is responsible for men going to hell for their sins.
(5) The true view of the relation of total depravity to natural revelation is this. Total depravity uniformly influences man’s response to natural revelation and the knowledge or awareness of God it imparts. It is in this sense that it is total or uniform. Yet it does not erase that revelation from his consciousness. Nor does it deliver him from being continually confronted by it.
III. The Philosophy of the Natural Man
A. Historical Problem
Throughout the history of Christian apologetics we noticed again and again the attempt of well-meaning Christian teachers to use popular views and philosophies of their period to defend the Christian faith. Justin Martyr adapted Platonism to this purpose. We argued that the result of this was disastrous for Christian truth despite its supposed advantages. Thomas Aquinas utilized Aristotelian philosophy and logic to construct his massive statement of Christian doctrine and truth. We noticed how this made his arguments for God almost impossible to understand. We also noticed how it exposed those arguments to many objections.
On the other hand, men like Tertullian in the early church and Kuyper in the modern period emphasized the Antithesis or the complete hostility or contradiction between Christian faith and worldly philosophy. This, however, has made it difficult for them to explain the measure of truth, goodness, and progress that worldly societies have manifested. They have had a more difficult time than Justin Martyr explaining the degree of value present in non-Christian religions and philosophies.
B. Biblical Solution
Again, Romans 1:18-23 gives us a beginning in properly resolving this problem. The religious tendency in men is due to the innate sense of deity which natural revelation develops in them. By implication, the philosophical tendency in men which makes them seek after ultimate truth is due to the same reality. The philosophies and religions of natural men all work with this innate sense of deity and seed of religion planted in them by their Creator. Fundamentally, they are perversions and distortions of this natural revelation. Their suppression of the truth operates by substituting false gods for the true one and lies for the truth. The appearance of truth and value in their intellectual systems is due to the dim reflections of truth we occasionally glimpse through the error that covers it.
Now, according to their natural tendency, such systems could manifest no practical value or outward goodness. The false starting-points of these religions and philosophies could have no value or goodness in God’s world. Another reality must be taken into account. God in His common grace restrains the sins of men. He introduces blessed inconsistencies into their thinking. It is such inconsistencies which allow worldly religions and philosophies to manifest a measure of value and goodness. This reality of common grace is not emphasized in Romans 1:18-23. Yet the emphasis of Paul on the fact that natural men should give thanks to God (Rom. 1:21) and that the goodness of God leads natural men to repentance (Rom. 2:4; cf. Acts 14:17) makes plain that God has not abandoned or ceased to work with wicked, natural men.
Fundamentally, however, the teaching of Romans 1:18-23 is that all the philosophies and religions of natural men have their foundation in a rejection of their duty to honor God and thank Him. They all operate, in other words, with the presupposition that they have no obligation to honor or thank the living God. Naturally, intellectual systems growing out of such a premise or presupposition will without exception eventually poison any defense of the Christian faith which attempts to use them. Despite their appearance of truth, goodness, and beauty, they are simply sophisticated disguises for the worm of sin. Thus, we must not follow Justin Martyr or Thomas Aquinas in their use of Plato or Aristotle to defend the Christian faith. Such defenses of the Christian faith either result in the perversion of the faith or end up proving nothing.
IV. The Problem of the Contact Point (or Common Ground)
The above discussion of non-Christian religion and philosophy naturally raises the question or problem of common ground or the point of contact between believer and unbeliever. Classical Apologetics has made natural reason and its better religious and philosophical productions the point of contact between the Christian faith and the natural man. Kuyper and his school have pointed out the depravity of natural reason. As a result of this, they have for all practical purposes denied that there is any point of contact between believer and unbeliever. Our study of 1 Peter 3:15 led us to conclude that there is a point of contact between the saved and unsaved. Peter himself assumed this when he told his Christian readers to make a defense of the hope within them to any who should ask. 1 Peter 3:15, however, does not make plain what that point of contact may be. Since the Bible teaches the depravity and wickedness of natural reason, the question cannot be answered in the way Classical Apologetics has done.
Romans 1:18-23 enables us to answer the question of common ground as follows:
A. Nothing in Common
Romans 1:18-23 teaches, first of all, that believers and unbelievers have nothing in common. That is to say, they have nothing in common with the religions or philosophies growing out of the bitter root of man’s refusal to honor and thank the living God. There is no common ground between the way of life and thinking which honors and thanks God and the way which does not. There is no point of contact between light and darkness and the text says that “their foolish heart was darkened”. As to man’s intellectual knowledge, he is ignorant of God.
Therefore, our appeal must not be to man’s intellectual interpretations of reality‑‑what he admits to be so, his religions and his philosophy. We must remember that the unbeliever’s presuppositions are false. This makes his entire interpretation of reality completely false. We must, therefore, never permit him on the basis of his philosophies or religions to decide whether Christianity is true. We must never appeal to him to consider the truth of Christianity on his own grounds, from his own presuppositions. There is need for repentance, regeneration, and revolution in the unbeliever‑-not merely the revision of his view of the world.
B. Everything in Common
Yet in another sense this key passage of God’s Word teaches us that the believer and unbeliever have everything in common. How does this key distinction show this? First of all, Romans 1:18‑23 assures us that we have a point of contact with every man for the gospel. Man not only has a vague sense of deity, he knows the true God. He does not merely have the capacity by means of complex, theistic proofs to be brought to the knowledge of God. He is confronted with the existence of God continually. This knowledge and confrontation with the true God are far-reaching. He knows the power, goodness, and justice of God. He knows the wrath of God. He is aware that as an apostate son of God he is exposed to that wrath. God and the gospel are relevant for the worst pagans.[4] They always make sense to the sinner. They always fit his condition.
C. Inevitability of Confrontation
Romans 1:18‑23 teaches that man’s intellectual problems with the gospel are ultimately moral and ethical in their causes. Ignorance and anti‑Christian intellectual systems are the product of sin. The fact that men know God and that their true problem is moral has a deep impact on our method of presenting the gospel.
(1) There is no avoiding confrontation. Confrontation is necessary. We must set before men the absolute difference between what we believe and what they believe. We must emphasize the antithesis, that is to say, the intellectual hostility between Christianity and every other view. People today like to think of themselves as tolerant and accepting. They will attempt to put a construction on our teaching which they can accept within their viewpoint. We must constantly make plain the absolute differences.
(2) All this means that our manner, while kind, must be one of authoritative boldness. Because men do know God, anything short of a demand that they accept the truth is wrong. Anything else betrays the truth. We must never so present the truth of the gospel as to imply that there is any possibility that it might not be true. We must always present the gospel as absolute truth accompanied by undoubtable evidence.
(3) Romans 1:18-23 makes clear that the explanation for the natural man’s intellectual problems with the gospel is always at bottom moral. If we are really to address his needs, our presentation of the gospel and even our intellectual arguments must have an ethical focus. Clearly, this being his problem, the unconverted man will always feel personally attacked by the gospel. Unless he repents, what it says about him must make him angry. As those commanded to preach the gospel, we must never think we can avoid this uncomfortable situation. We must never try to invent a gospel or method of presenting it which avoids this. If we succeed in inventing such a gospel or such a method, it will only be by betraying and destroying the biblical gospel.
D. Necessity of Presuppositionalism (in theistic proofs)
As we have seen, Romans 1:18-23 teaches a key distinction with regard to the natural man’s knowledge of God. Constitutionally, he knows God and cannot help but know God. Intellectually, he does not know God, and his foolish heart is darkened. This means, when we raise the question of common ground, we must assert that the unbeliever and believer have everything in common, and nothing in common. Both of these responses to the question of common ground are of great importance with regard to the subject of theistic proofs.
Because the unbeliever has everything in common with the believer (including the fact that both know of the existence of God), in a sense the theistic proofs are not necessary. They are not necessary, because we do not need to prove to the unbeliever what he already knows. The theistic proofs as put together in Classical Apologetics were intended to bring the natural man from a state of not knowing God to a state of knowing God. Or, they were intended to bring him from a state of knowing God vaguely and uncertainly to a state of knowing God clearly and certainly. Theistic proofs put together for such purposes are unnecessary. The unbeliever already knows God and knows Him so clearly and certainly that he is without excuse.
Because the unbeliever (on the other hand) has nothing in common with the believer, the theistic proofs of Classical Apologetics are also misguided. The theistic proofs have been built on what was thought to be neutral ground. Justin Martyr took the supposedly neutral ground of Plato’s philosophy. Aquinas took the neutral ground of Aristotle’s logic and philosophy. In both cases the theistic proofs assumed that there was an intellectual neutral ground between believer and unbeliever. According to Romans 1:18-23 no such neutral ground exists. We might have thought that in the religious desires and thoughts of the unbeliever there would be some ground that was not stained by his sin. Yet Paul sees the religion of the natural man as the high point and climax of his depravity.
Theistic proofs which assume that the unbeliever does not know God and which assume that there is an intellectually neutral ground are not biblical, useful, sound, or convincing. This does not mean that theistic proofs are wrong. They simply must be properly put together. Romans 1:18-23 asserts that the world proves the existence of God every moment of its existence (Psa. 19:1, 2). For theistic proofs to be valid or sound, however, they must be presuppositional in character. This means two things.
First, this means that they must presuppose or assume that men already know that God exists. Thus, theistic proofs must have for their focus leaving men without excuse by exposing their suppression of the truth.
Second, this means that theistic proofs must presuppose or assume that there is no such thing as neutral ground intellectually. All intellectual systems and religious ideas are either built on a humble and thankful acknowledgement of the living God or a refusal to honor and thank God. It is impossible to prove the existence of the living God on the basis of a system which begins by thinking that we need not honor or thank God.
If they are to be right and sound, the theistic proofs must be radically altered away from what they were in Classical Apologetics. They must assume that men already know God and expose their suppression of the truth. They must realize that there is no neutral ground and self-consciously assume the existence of the living God.
[1]Van Til contrasts psychological and epistemological knowledge of God. He also speaks of metaphysical and ethical knowledge of God. Cf. Jim S. Halsey’s For a Time Such as This (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 66-68. I mean to make the same distinction by means of the terms, constitutional and intellectual.
[2]Thus, Classical Apologetics is guilty of what might be called apologetical Eutychianism. Eutychianism was a false doctrine with regard to the person of Christ. It was also known as monophysitism. Its error was to teach that after the incarnation Christ had only one nature. Thus, what orthodox Christology kept separate, the divine and human natures of Christ, it mixed together. Thus, Christ’s nature was a tertium quid–a third thing–neither divine nor human, but something else. Consequently, it could do no justice to what the Scriptures taught either about the divinity or the humanity of Christ. Similarly, Classical Apologetics has failed to keep distinct the two kinds of knowledge of God and, thus, can do no justice to what the Scripture teaches about either.
[3]B.B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield (Presbyterian and Reformed: Nutley, New Jersey, 1973), “Introduction to Beattie’s Apologetics,” 2:99-100, 105.
[4]Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 90‑94, 153; The Infallible Word, Van Til, “Nature and Scripture,” 274-275.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
