*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.
