Posts Tagged ‘John Whitcomb’

THE EVANGELICAL APOLOGETIC CHART

Posted: August 26, 2010 in Apologetics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

Thomas Aquinas represents Rationalism which propounds that Christianity could be proven by pure logic which includes the theistic arguments for God’s existence: cosmological, teleological, anthropological, and the ontological arguments. These arguments for the existence of God in theory came from Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a Roman Catholic theologian whose Summa Theologica, was declared by Poe Leo XIII to be the official doctrinal statement of the RCC in 1879. Aquinas was influenced by the Greek philosophy of Aristotle and his famous a posteriori argument from effect to cause. The classical arguments for God’s existence as discussed by Ryrie, in part, follow Aquinas’ famous Five Ways or proofs for God’s existence. Here is a summary of Aquinas’ Five Ways or five rational arguments.

Dr. Bowman has excellent notes entitled A Theological Investigation of Evangelical Apologetics in which he classifies evangelical apologetics into four groups. I would suggest you purchase these notes from our book store. The first group is Rationalism. This is the group in which Aquinas would fit. The three other groups are semi-rationalism, semi-persuppositionalism, and presuppositioalism.

Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways or five rational arguments for the existence of God

The argument from motion: All things in motion need a Mover

The cosmological argument: All effects have a Cause

The argument from contingency: All things exist in dependence

The argument from perfection: There is an increasing degree of perfection among things

The teleological argument: The observable design in the world suggests that there must be an intelligent Designer

Semi-Rationalism is represented by Edward John Carnell, who believes that Christian Evidences are necessary to prepare the sinner for the gospel. When I think of this view, Romans 1:16 comes to my mind where Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.”

Edward John Carnell wrote An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, A Philosophic Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith and he taught apologetics at Fuller Theological Seminary. Carnell taught that Christian Evidences are necessary to prepare the sinner for the gospel. His methodology for witnessing to a Type B agnostic who sincerely has intellectual problems with Christianity includes the following steps.

First, present evidence, such as archaeological proof, to prepare the sinner for the gospel. According to Carnell you dare not start with the gospel until you have answered all of the intellectual difficulties.

Second, if the sinner is impressed turn to the Scripture.

Third, if the sinner is unimpressed use logic and pure rationalism.

Fourth, if the sinner is still unimpressed, stop and go no further.

When Carnell was a freshman at Wheaton College, under the philosophy teacher Gordon Clark, Carnell stopped witnessing at the street meeting when certain men asked him questions about Christianity which he could not answer. What do you think he should have done?

Semi-Presuppositionalism is similar to the Semi-Rationalism view. Semi-Presuppositionalism has a little more dependence on God than Semi-Rationalism. Semi-Presuppositionalism believes Christian Evidences may be used by God.

Bernard Ramm in his book Protestant Christian Evidence explains: “Apologetics and Christian evidences are not the gospel, but if a man has a prejudice against the gospel it is the function of apologetics and evidences to remove that prejudice” (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidence (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953, p. 15). I do not have a problem with God using Christian Evidences or Apologetics to remove the prejudices but God is not limited to Apologetics or Christian Evidences to remove the prejudices.

Lee Strobel in his The Case For Christ interviewed archaeologist John McRay on the role of archaeology in apologetics. McRay’s response was as follows. “Archaeology has made some important contributions, but it certainly can’t prove whether the New Testament is the Word of God” (Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p.95). Can God use archaeology to enhance the reliability of the New Testament with an unsaved critic? He can! But God is not limited to using archaeology to remove the critic’s prejudice. If God is limited to archaeology in removing prejudices then why did He wait until the 20th century to confirm the Bible through archaeology or other Christian Evidences. This means that 1st century believers did not have such confirmations.

The final category in the Chart of Evangelical Apologetics is Presuppositionalism.  This view is represented by Cornelius Van Til, F. F. Bruce, and modern theologians like Dr. Robert Reymond, Dr. John Whitcomb, and Dr. Hoyle Bowman.

Let me start with a few quotes: “Like his first-century predecessors, the apologist of today must confront men with the truth about God – Creator, Provider, Lord of history, Judge of all – and His command to repent” (F. F. Bruce, The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959, p. 48).

“The so-called theistic arguments (ontological, cosmological, teleological) do not really prove the existence of God. One must already be a Christian before these theistic arguments would have any confirming weight” (Hoyle Bowman, A Theological Investigation of Evangelical Apologetics P.B.C. notes, 1970, p. 29).

The Presuppositionalist assumes that God exists (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 14:1; John 1:1; and Heb. 11:6) and has already convinced sinners that He exists. Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.”

The Presuppositionalist believes the sinner is totally depraved and totally blind to the gospel (2nd Cor. 4:4a) and only the Spirit of God using “the glorious gospel of Christ” (2nd Cor. 4:4b) can opened satanically blinded eyes.

The Presuppositionalist follows the example of Paul in Acts 14:1-18 at Lystra with the unsaved pagans.

1. Paul first preached the gospel and not a rationalistic argument (14:7).

2. Paul assumes they believe in the existence of a higher being (14:15).

3. Paul’s apologetics started with special revelation in verses 15-17 which allude to Gen. 8:22; Ps. 4:7; and Isa. 25:6.

The Importance of Doctrinal Statements, Part Three

Posted: April 19, 2010 in Doctrinal Statements, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

international-council-on-biblical-inerrancy-77850651Fuller Theological Seminary illustrates the effect of a Christian institution or local church abandoning a solid doctrinal statement. The Domino Effect took place at Fuller Theological Seminary which was founded in 1947 by Charles Fuller.

Fuller’s first doctrinal statement read:

“The books which form the canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” I think you will agree with me, this is a solid Biblical statement.

Every faculty member was to sign without mental reservation or voluntarily leave. In 1962, one board member denied inerrancy and nothing was done. Later two faculty members denied inerrancy and nothing was done.

In 1972, Fuller adopted a new doctrinal statement:

“Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” One all important statement is omitted from the first statement: “free from all error in the whole and in the part.” Thus you have the denial of inerrancy.

Five years later (1977) Fuller’s professor Paul King Jewett in his Man as Male and Female said Paul’s teaching about the subordination of woman to male leadership in Ephesians 5 is an error and in contradiction to Galatians 3:28. In other words, now at Fuller, according to Jewett’s view, the Scripture is infallible only in the area of faith or salvation.

Look at the downward spiral which took place at Fuller.

1. Fuller went from believing the infallibility and the inerrancy of all Scripture (in their first doctrinal statement).

2. Fuller then moved to believing the infallibility of the Scripture only in faith and practice and no longer in inerrancy (seen in second doctrinal statement).

3. Finally, Fuller moved to believing the infallibility of Scripture only in the area of salvation (Jewett’s view). Or the Scripture is only inerrant when it speaks of salvation.

Neo-Orthodoxy made its influence on Fuller through Daniel Fuller who went to Bazil, Switzerland, to study under Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who did not believe in inerrancy. Barth wrote about his view of errancy in his Church Dogmatics: “The Bible witnesses to a revelation from God …..The prophets and apostles are actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word” (Church Dogmatics pp. 507, 528, 529).

“The illustration that the Neo-Orthodox usually gives is that the Bible is like a minister preaching the Gospel. Although there may be many mistakes in his sermon, he is still witnessing to the truth, and this is sufficient to secure salvation for men” (Steward Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy, p. 75.).

In 1978, the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy met at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago consisting of 300 noted scholars, including Wayne Grudem, Homer Kent, Jr., John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, John Whitcomb, etc. to combat this heresy and produced The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Article XI reads, “We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.”

This view of infallibility and inerrancy being the same is challenged today. Some would say that the Bible is infallible in areas of “Faith and Practice” or that the Bible is without error when it teaches us how to be saved and how to live the Christian life. The reason the Bible is infallible in these two areas, they say, is because this is the reason the Bible was written. But in areas of history and science the Bible is not inerrant. This is the view of Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim in The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible.

What is our response to this reasoning that does not see the infallibility and inerrancy as equally important? 

The Bible declares that “all Scripture is inspired.” The term “Scripture” includes the O.T. (Lk. 24:44), the gospels (Lk. 4:21) and the N.T. epistles (2nd Pet. 3:16). The New Testament authors trusted the smallest historical details from the Old Testament.

Hebrew 11:3 makes a scientific statement that must be accepted by faith. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

These conservative theologians at the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy not only saw the error that resulted from a doctrinal statement abandoned, they not only cursed the darkness, they lit a light and forged another solid doctrinal statement that now must be practiced and defended.

Justin Holcomb for the most part gives an accurate summary of the ICBI or CBSI. I disagree, however, with his caricature of fundamentalism as the following quotes shows. While all liberals downplay the role supernatural role in the writing of Scripture, not all fundamentalists downplay the human role in dual authorship as Holcomb accuses.

While not to be given creedal status, the CBSI is an important statement that Christians ought to affirm. One of the reasons is, the CBSI navigates between liberalism and fundamentalism. Liberalism so analyzes and assesses the historical background and literary features of a text (the human features) that the text’s authenticity and factuality is negated in the process. Fundamentalism so emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s activity in the writing of the Scriptures (the divine features) that the human authorship of the text is severely minimized or denied.

You can read about important doctrinal statements in Part 1, Part 2, Part 4.