by Sam Waldron | Jun 4, 2019 | Apologetics, Book Reviews, Uncategorized
Preface
Let
us be frank. Fesko’s Reforming Apologetics is challenging for
Presuppositionalists. I have been a
convinced Presuppositionalist in my understanding of the defense of the faith
for something over 40 years. Of course,
this commitment has not been without remaining questions. Who can read Cornelius Van Til and not have
questions? Who can think about
Presuppositional apologetics and not ponder some very deep and difficult
issues?
Part
of the reason for my problem is my own education. Though I have read a good deal of philosophy
over the years, I never quite finished a philosophy minor in college. A knowledge of philosophy is, as Fesko’s book
itself makes clear, really helpful in discussing biblical apologetics with its
unavoidable focus on epistemology. Fesko
admits that Thomas Aquinas was influenced by the Aristotelian philosophy in his
day. He argues that a Kantian and
Idealist philosophical background was important in the formulation of Van Til’s
apologetic approach.
Still,
I have been convinced that Van Til’s approach embodied a commitment to the
distinctives of the Reformed faith lacking in other systems. More importantly, I have found its key
insights in Scripture. I am a
Presuppositionalist because of my understanding of Scripture and not because of
my understanding of philosophy. I found in Van Til key advances in embodying
scriptural truth in Christian apologetics.
All
that being said, Presuppositionalism has fallen, it seems to me, on dark
days. For perhaps 50 years
Presuppositionalism has been, if not the reigning system of apologetics in
Reformed circles, a very popular viewpoint.
Of course, there was push back at times.
30 years or so ago I read Classical
Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of
Presuppositional Apologetics authored by R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and
Arthur Lindsley (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1984). I found its argument unconvincing and (some
of) its theology problematic. I think it
did little to stem the rising tide of Presuppositionalism.
It
appears, however, in our day that a re-evaluation of Presuppositionalism has
gained momentum. I suspect that one influence might be “reverence” for R. C.
Sproul. Sproul is one of the major
influences in “the Reformed resurgence.” His passing into glory may have given
his well-known opposition to Presuppositionalism a new appeal for some.
Another cause of this re-evaluation may be that every theological system is subject to a kind of degeneration—especially when it enjoys the kind of popularity that Presuppositionalism has gained in Reformed circles. This can be illustrated from Van Til’s idea of paradox. Paradox is important in Van Til’s approach. Cf. John Frame’s Essay, Van Til: The Theologian. I certainly agree with him about the importance of this concept. There has been, it appears to me, misuse or at least sloppy use of the important concept of paradox prominent in Van Til’s approach. Presuppositionalists have occasionally said things that are not only paradoxical, but downright irrational. The adversaries of Van Til have also trumpeted some of his (and his followers) more novel-sounding theological statements.
An additional cause of re-evaluation is thatPresuppositionalism has additionally been co-opted by viewpoints that must be suspect by those who follow the Reformed Confessions. One is Theonomy. Christian Reconstructionism has proudly proclaimed that one of its foundational tenets is Presuppositionalism.[1] I am convinced that the Theonomy of Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North cannot be squared with the Reformed Confessional tradition. Statements critical of both Calvin and the Westminster Confession by them actually admit this. To a lesser extent even Greg Bahnsen, whose views of Van Til’s apologetics I respect, also contradicts at points the Reformed tradition. My views of these men and their theonomy are set out in an essay entitled: Theonomy [or Christian Reconstruction] : A Reformed Baptist Assessment. It is available online. Suffice to say, many if not most Presuppositionalists are traditionally confessional and have actually rejected Theonomy in the sense taught by its classic exponents.
Another
cause of re-evaluation is the embrace of viewpoints which possibly deviate from
the tenets of Classical Theism by some Presuppositionalists. Leading Presuppositionalists
like Scott Oliphint in books defending Presuppositional apologetics have
adopted viewpoints that appear to raise questions about the simplicity and
impassibility of God. Cf. K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith,
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013).
For
all of these reasons, not a few in our day are ready to re-evaluate
Presuppositionalism’s claim to be the truly Reformed apologetic. This is, of course, neither fair nor
logical. Neither Theonomy, nor
revisionist views of classical theism, follow from Van Til or
Presuppositionalism. Nevertheless,
suspicion remains in some minds. Thus, if
there is not a crisis, there are at least major questions regarding
Presuppositionalism and its claims. As a
confessional Reformed Baptist, these things make it more difficult to respond
to Fesko’s challenge to Presuppositionalism.
[1]Peter J.
Leithart, “An Interview with Dr. R. J. Rushdoony,” The Counsel of
Chalcedon (Sept. 1985): 14-17; Gary North, Honest Reporting as Heresy: My
Response to Christianity Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1987), 7.
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 admin | Jul 29, 2013 | Apologetics
Our administrator, John Divito, was recently interviewed on the Viewpoint on Mormonism radio show. As a former Mormon, he was asked by Christianity Today magazine to contribute to a discussion on Mormonism in their monthly Village Green column. After the release of this issue, Mormon blogger Jana Reiss responded with “Mormon Works vs. Evangelical Grace? Not So Fast” on the Religious News Service blog. As a result, this series of twelve-minute radio shows discusses the relationship between grace and works in Mormonism and biblical Christianity in light of Reiss’ response.
This five-part radio interview includes: 1) John’s testimony and background, 2) John’s contribution to Christianity Today, 3) Learning more about Jana Reiss, and 4&5) John’s interaction with Reiss’ response.
So be sure to listen to all five parts of this informative series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4| Part 5
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by CBTSeminary | May 27, 2013 | Apologetics
Earlier this month, Christianity Today magazine published a brief article I wrote for their Village Green feature. They asked three of us to answer the question: “What Can Christians Learn From the Surge in Mormon Youth Missionaries?” As a former Mormon, I was grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this piece. Since the May 2013 issue was released, I received an e-mail from a Mormon questioning me on the relationship between grace and works. While I want his identity and message to remain private, I thought my response could be helpful to other evangelical believers as they seek to understand Mormonism and reach out to them in love with the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
I appreciate your writing to me and look forward to an open discussion about our beliefs. At the same time, I must begin by disagreeing with your assessment that we are fellow Christians. After all, the LDS church was founded upon a supposed revelation where Joseph Smith was told about my faith that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men’” ().
To me one of the clearest expressions of this divide was expressed by former President Gordon B. Hinckley in the LDS Church News several years ago: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times’” (June 20, 1998). Hinckley stated this same division at the April 2002 General Conference (“We Walk By Faith”).
Some of the confusion over the divide between our faiths is because we often use the same words but give these words different meanings. Essentially, we often use the same language but with a different dictionary. So we mean different things when we use words such as Christ, grace, faith, salvation, eternal life, etc. These differences must not be ignored, and they deny the possibility of a common faith that unites us.
Now, to focus on the relationship between grace and works in our two faiths, we once again see a contrast of beliefs. This is why I compared with in my Christianity Today article. While you may suggest that teaches “We hold that after all we can do it is (still) by grace that we are saved,” this goes against what many LDS church leaders have said about this verse. Please see Aaron Shafovaloff’s helpful article for more information: “2 Nephi 25:23 – A Distinctive Mormon Passage on Salvation.”
The very definition of Grace that you refer to on the LDS church’s web site includes this understanding: “To receive this enabling power, we must obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of our lives.” Obedience is required for grace to be sufficient.
While this LDS article may reference , it directly contradicts this passage from the Bible through its definition. In these verses, grace is explicitly opposed to our works of obedience. Grace does not require them! Grace is God’s forgiving mercy in Jesus Christ. Christ substitutes Himself for sinners by taking the wrath of God that we deserve upon Himself. When we trust in His substitutionary work for us, we are united to Christ by faith and counted righteous in Him. What a glorious exchange! Christ receives our punishment, and we receive His perfection. Believers are given eternal life as a gift through Christ’s atoning work on the cross.
How does the Wilcox speech that you mention explain grace? I admit that it is different than what I was raised hearing in the LDS church. But is this because I never really understood LDS teaching? Or is it because Wilcox is responding to the sense of failure that LDS teaching often produces? A quick study of General Conference messages, LDS manuals, and other important writings proves the later.
To give just one example from a recent speech by Elder D. Todd Christofferson at the October 2011 General Conference: “For our turning to the Lord to be complete, it must include nothing less than a covenant of obedience to Him…. Without this covenant, repentance remains incomplete and the remission of sins unattained” (emphasis mine, “The Divine Gift of Repentance”). So when we look at Wilcox’s speech, we find him trying to “soften the blow” that a person can easily feel when taught that our works are required to achieve eternal life.
The key to unlocking the meaning of Wilcox’s argument is found in his answer to the BYU student’s skeptical question “Right! Like I don’t have to do anything?” Wilcox responds: “‘Oh no,’ I said, ‘you have plenty to do, but it is not to fill that gap. We will all be resurrected. We will all go back to God’s presence. What is left to be determined by our obedience is what kind of body we plan on being resurrected with and how comfortable we plan to be in God’s presence and how long we plan to stay there.’” According to Wilcox, filling the gap refers to the resurrection, not eternal life. Achieving eternal life is determined by our obedience.
This differentiation between understanding salvation as resurrection and salvation as eternal life is exactly what Spencer W. Kimball was referring to in The Miracle of Forgiveness:
“One could multiply references almost indefinitely but enough has been said to establish the point that the repentant life, the life which constantly reaches for perfection, must rely on works as well as on faith. The gospel is a program of action—of doing things. Man’s immortality and eternal life are God’s goals. (Moses 1:39.) Immortality has been accomplished by the Savior’s sacrifice. Eternal life hangs in the balance awaiting the works of men.
“This progress toward eternal life is a matter of achieving perfection. Living all the commandments guarantees total forgiveness of sins and assures one of exaltation through that perfection which comes by complying with the formula the Lord gave us. In his Sermon on the Mount he made the command to all men: ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’ (Matt. 5:48.) Being perfect means to triumph over sin. This is a mandate from the Lord. He is just and wise and kind. He would never require anything from his children which was not for their benefit and which was not attainable. Perfection therefore is an achievable goal” (208-209).
So in this book, a former President of the LDS church states: “Immortality has been accomplished by the Savior’s sacrifice. Eternal life hangs in the balance awaiting the works of men.” As you can see, this is not merely a divide between LDS culture and LDS doctrine. Rather, the LDS culture is a result of LDS doctrine.
At the same time, this is not the grace of biblical Christianity! Again, we find the use of the same words while giving them different meanings. In the evangelical faith, the grace of God is given through Christ purchasing eternal life for us. Our works of obedience are an expression of love for the gift of eternal life which we have been freely given in Christ. Yes, this grace transforms us into the likeness of our Savior, but these works are not required to inherit eternal life in the presence of God. They are a result of our receiving eternal life.
My prayer for you is that the Holy Ghost will open your heart to the true gospel of Jesus Christ, leading you to repent of the hope you have in the false gospel of the LDS church. Consider this warning from God in Scripture: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (). And in case we take this warning lightly, the same warning is repeated: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (). Turn to Jesus Christ, your only hope of eternal life!
Because of His grace,
John Divito
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
