The higher critics with whom Warfield was contending believed that the Bible contained errors. They held the moral and ethical teachings in the Bible suspect. Ultimately, these critics held to a worldview which denied the supernatural realm and so sought to explain the Scriptures in a way that excluded supernatural events. The explicit major premise of the critics was that the Bible contained historical, scientific, and factual errors. The implicit minor premise was that the Bible contained statements concerning ethical, spiritual, and religious issues that went beyond what could be proven to be true. Therefore, these critics concluded, since the Bible is unreliable in scientific and historical issues that can be tested, it is also likely unreliable in matters of religion and spirituality which cannot be tested.
Warfield sought to answer these critics by challenging (and essentially inverting) their explicit major premise. Warfield argued that the Bible was reliable in matters that could be tested (history and geography, for example). And since the Bible can be shown to be reliable in these areas, he concluded, we can also trust the Bible in matters which cannot be tested (theology and ethics, for example). In this way Warfield argued that the Bible was completely trustworthy.
But while I would whole-heartedly agree with Warfield's conclusion, there seems to be a few problems with his approach.
- The argument is lost before it begins. We have already compromised the authority of God’s Word when we begin to appeal to the supposed higher authority of human reason.
- At best Warfield arrives at probability. There is a logical leap that occurs when he moves from that which can be tested to that which cannot be tested. It is logically possible that a source might be reliable in all matters which can be verified while remaining unreliable in matters which cannot be verified.
- There is a question as to who should have the burden of proof (note that this is a moral question!). As Christians, we begin with God and His revelation in the Scripture. This is our highest standard of proof. When we accept the burden of proof on the terms of the unbeliever, we have alread conceded (see problem 1 above). Warfield accepts the burden of proof and, in so doing, concedes to the rationalist worldview.
So while I appreciate Warfield and his legacy in almost every respect, I am more inclined to follow the method of apologetics espoused by his predecessor, Cornelius Van Til, who along with J. Gresham Machen, left Princeton Seminary to form Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929.*
_____________________________
*Note that the theological prolegomena followed by Van Til can also be seen in Dutch Reformed theologicans such as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, as well as apologists Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and the theological tradition of Westminster Theological Seminary, Westminster Seminary California, and Reformed Theological Seminary.
Granted, Steve, Van Til’s prolegomena was closer to those of Kuyper and Bavinck’s, yet even these giants were not safe from the muzzle flash of Van Til’s Reformed polemicism. Consider the following:
ReplyDelete“Even so, both Kuyper and Bavinck did not work out their own principles fully; their primary interest was theological rather than apologetical. When they did engage in apologetical argument they sometimes employed the method which they themselves had criticized in others” (an excerpt from Christian Theory of Knowledge in Bahnsen’s Van Til’s Apologetic, 24).
Again, concerning Kuyper, Van Til says,
“I am unable to follow him when from the fact of the mutually destructive character of the two principles [Christian supernaturalism vs. naturalism] he concludes to the usefulness of reasoning with the natural man” (from Defense of the Faith, Ibid. 42).
But elsewhere, Van Til acknowledges the general point that you are making. In Introduction to Systematic Theology, Van Til says,
“On the other hand, we hold that the basic contention of Kuyper with respect to Warfield’s position is correct. Warfield often argues as though apologetics must use a method of approach to the natural man that the other disciplines need not and cannot use. He reasons as though apologetics can establish the truth of Christianity as a whole by a method other than that of the other disciplines [i.e., dogmatics, et cetera] because it alone does not presuppose God.”
Bahnsen’s footnote on this last citation is illuminating.
“It should be noticed that Van Til does not side completely with Kuyper against Warfield—or completely with Warfield against Kuyper. He uses each to correct the errors in the other. Here he has disagreement with Kuyper’s negative conception of apologetics, which subordinates it to systematics, but now turns to disagree with Warfield’s subordination of systematics to the results of a neutral apologetic” (Ibid. 55, n. 43).
Here is where Van Til most brilliantly shined his light to the glory of God, outshining all his predecessors. As both a theologian and an apologete, Van Til began with the presupposition of Christ’s Self-attesting authority speaking in Scripture. There truly was for Van Til no area of human experience that was periphery to Christ’s claim of Authority, just as there was no one, friend or foe, who was safe from his critique according to that Standard. In this respect, Van Til could say with the Law-loving psalmist, “I have more understanding than all my teachers...” (Ps 119:99).
Thanks for the thoughtful post.