Revelation and Reason

I remember when I discovered apologetics. I had arrived at university and quickly realized that not only did most of my peers not share my Christian beliefs, some of them were also eager to prove those beliefs to be foolish superstitions. The former attitude I had already experienced at high school; the latter I had not. So I invested in a number of popular books offering “many compelling evidences” for the Christian faith and eagerly devoured them. In truth, they weren’t much help in persuading my fellow students of their errors. But they reassured me — and for that I’m grateful. What’s more, they sparked an enduring passion for Christian apologetics.

I also remember when I discovered that the Bible has more to say about apologetics than 1 Peter 3:15. I was browsing in a Christian bookstore and happened upon a book by John Frame called Apologetics to the Glory of God. The title immediately grabbed my attention. The idea that the purpose of apologetics is glorify God, rather than to save me from looking dumb and credulous in front of unbelievers, had never occurred to me. I bought the book and it triggered a revolution in my thinking about apologetics. As my studies progressed, I realized that the Bible has many significant things to say about how we should reason, where our ultimate authority lies, what believers know and don’t know, what unbelievers know and don’t know, and how believers should engage with unbelievers. In other words, the Bible has much to say about apologetic methodology: about how Christians ought to defend their faith.

In the main, Reformed scholars have tended to take more of an interest in matters of apologetic methodology than other Christian scholars. Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics, edited by Scott Oliphint and Lane Tipton, is a case in point. As the title indicates, the overarching theme of the essays is to explore how revelation (specifically, Scripture) informs and constrains our use of reason in defending the claims of Christianity. Although the Reformed tradition has historically accommodated a number of different approaches to apologetics, the contributors to this volume are united in identifying ‘Reformed apologetics’ with the presuppositional approach pioneered by Cornelius Van Til. In a sense, the whole book is pitched as a multi-faceted defense of this conviction.

After an introductory chapter by the editors (an exegesis of 1 Peter 3) the essays are arranged into three parts. Part 1 contains five chapters that defend and explore the exegetical foundations of presuppositional apologetics, covering passages such as 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, Acts 17, and Colossians 1-2. The five essays in Part 2 focus on the relationship between confessional Reformed theology and apologetic method. Part 3 consists of four chapters that engage with recent philosophical and cultural developments from a Van Tilian perspective.

As one might expect, the most insightful and useful material in the volume comes from the more seasoned contributors. Three deserve particular mention: Richard Gaffin’s opener is a master class in biblical exegesis; Moisés Silva offers a cogent and provocative defense of the claim that biblical interpretation demands a theological framework (indeed, a Calvinistic framework); and John Frame provides a lucid discussion of how God’s absolute independence impacts the discipline of apologetics. One other chapter worth noting here is Don Collett’s discussion of Van Til’s ‘transcendental argument’ for God. While some readers may be put off by its (unavoidable) logical technicalities, it is well written and makes a substantial contribution to the debate over whether there is anything distinctive about Van Til’s argument (compared to the ‘traditional arguments’ for the existence of God).

The narrow focus of the essays is arguably both a virtue and a hindrance. I rather doubt that many of the arguments will persuade readers not already sympathetic toward Van Tilian apologetics, and Christians who aren’t theologically Reformed will find the book of limited interest. (Indeed, a number of passages suffer from an overdose of ‘Reformed-speak’: shibboleths like ‘redemptive-historical’, ‘covenantal’, and ‘eschatological’ seem to be stamped on every paragraph like theological kitemarks.)

Nevertheless, the book as a whole makes a substantial contribution to the existing literature on the relationship between apologetics and Reformed theology. Some of the essays are revisions of articles published elsewhere (despite the subtitle referring to ‘new essays’) but their inclusion in this collection makes them accessible to a more general readership.

Reformed presuppositionalists are often accused of spending more time talking about apologetic methodology than offering concrete apologetic arguments. The criticism is overstated, but I fear that books like this one do little to dispel that impression. It would be good to see Reformed publishers address this perceived imbalance by commissioning more books devoted to the practical application of presuppositional apologetics — if not from the contributors to Revelation and Reason then from other equally gifted intellects. In the meantime, however, those who take an interest in Reformed apologetics will certainly benefit from this collection of essays.