Apologetics O5ST530/01 Reformed Theological Seminary - Houston Instructor: R. Carlton Wynne Spring 2014 APOLOGETICS - O5ST530/01 “It is true that the best apologetics can be given only when the system of truth is well known. But it is also true that the system of truth is not well known except it be seen in opposition to error. Systematic theology itself has been developed, to a large extent, in opposition to error. The two disciplines are therefore mutually dependent upon one another.” (Cornelius Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., ed. William Edgar [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007], 18) I. Course Description A. Students examine a Reformed apologetic methodology in light of alternatives and engage a variety of objections to the Christian faith. II. Course Details A. Dates: Feb 28-Mar 1, Mar 28-29, May 16-17 (2014) B. Times: Friday, 7:00 PM-9:00 PM; Saturday, 8:00 AM-4:00 PM C. Place: RTS-Houston campus at Christ Evangelical Presbyterian Church D. Instructor: Carlton Wynne, Ph.D. Cand., Westminster Theological Seminary E. Contact: [email protected] III. Course Goals A. To exhibit a deeper love for the absolute and personal triune God, His word, and His church. B. To grasp the biblical and theological warrant, principles, content and method of a Reformed apologetic. C. To develop the ability to apply a Reformed apologetic method to a selection of intellectual, philosophical, and pastoral challenges to the Christian faith. IV. Philosophy and Purpose of the Course A. The task of defending the faith is one that is mandated in the Word of God. As a biblical mandate, it is something that every Christian must be concerned to learn and to follow. As Christians training for (pastoral) ministry, it is crucial to understand the task and function of apologetics so that, as you minister, you might be able to help others fulfill that task. It is also important for ministers of the Word to be able to communicate the gospel in a way that answers the challenges that come to the Christian faith. Therefore, understanding the task and goal of apologetics will enhance the communication of the gospel. B. How we think about apologetics will determine its content and its goal. In this course, we will follow an approach to apologetics that has been called, most generally, "presuppositionalism," a method often associated with former Westminster Theological Seminary professor Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). While the term "presuppositionalism" is not particularly helpful today (Dr. K. Scott Oliphint, one of Van Til's heirs, has helpfully proposed "covenantal apologetics" as an alternative moniker), nor hero worship our ambition, the biblical and theological warrant, principles, content and method of Van Til's 2 approach will be set forth in this course. C. Any single course of this nature has to be fairly general and selective. We cannot cover the whole terrain of apologetics in one semester. We will not be able to cover the history of apologetics or explore other apologetic methods in detail. Instead, our primary aim will be to unfold from Scripture and the Reformed tradition a God-honoring apologetic method that, by the power of the Spirit working by and with the Word, is able to "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought to obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). D. By the end of this course, you should have some of the most basic tools needed to develop a Christian approach to defending and commending the faith. Hopefully, the groundwork will be laid for years of fruitful reflection and service in Christ’s church, to His glory! V. Course Requirements A. Attendance and Class Participation 1. All registered students are expected to attend class lectures. Though much of the lecture material will be independent of the reading, they are designed to supplement one another. There is no way adequately to cover an introduction like this simply by reading assigned texts and others’ notes. Since this course is offered over three intensive weekends, to miss a single day's material is to miss a major section of the course. 2. Though the course will generally feature lecture format, class discussion and questions are welcomed and expected. Though because of time constraints, tangential comments should be reserved for outside of class time. If the need arises, we may set aside certain times for questions and discussions only. B. Reading Assignments 1. Required: i. Fisher, Alec. Critical Thinking. Cambridge University Press, 2001. Ch. 1- 9 (Note: While there is a second edition available, this is the first edition [2001], which is fine to use and much cheaper online) ii. Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1998. Pp. 1-41, 69-116, 120-156, 194-203, 220-317, 405-529 iii. Oliphint, K. Scott. Covenantal Apologetics: Principles & Practice in Defense of Our Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2013. ALL iv. Oliphint, K. Scott & Tipton, Lane G., eds. Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2007. Ch. 1, 3, 4, 6, Appendix v. Notaro, Thom. Van Til and the Use of Evidence. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980. ALL 2. Required for Course Paper (Note: since you will only need to read a single essay from one of these works—see Section "C" below—you may want to consult library copies of either instead of purchasing your own): 3 i. Martin, Michael, ed. The Impossibility of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. ii. Hitchens, Christopher, ed. The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2007. 3. Required (but not tested): i. Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. New ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. ALL ii. Clowney, Edmund P. "Preaching the Word of the Lord: Cornelius Van Til, V.D.M." Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 (1984): 233-53. ALL iii. (Note: These two assignments are meant to be for your own edification and enjoyment. They combine the best of scholarship with some very practical and central ideas that should help you see how much of what you are learning here, and in your other courses, relates to your own growth and ministry. I will ask you on the final exam if you have read these articles and if you have not it will affect your overall grade). 4. With regard to a reading schedule, if you have a method that works best for you, great. But the following is my strong suggestion (the plan here front- loads the reading, but averages ~110 pp./week): Feb 28 (CLASS WEEKEND) – Fisher, April 4 – Bahnsen, 261-317; pp. 1-78 (Ch. 1-5); Bahnsen, 1-41, 69-87; Oliphint/Tipton, 115-130; Machen, 133- Oliphint, 1-28 152 March 7 – Fisher, 79-137 (Ch. 6-9); April 11 – Bahnsen, 405-95; Oliphint, 123- Bahnsen, 120-43; Oliphint, 29-85 60 March 14 – Machen, 1-46; April 18 – Bahnsen, 496-529; Oliphint, Oliphint/Tipton, 13-40; Bahnsen, 144-56 161-224 March 21 – Machen, 47-98; Bahnsen, 194- April 25 – Notaro, 1-123; Oliphint/Tipton, 203; Oliphint, 87-122 279-303 March 28 (CLASS WEEKEND) – May 16 (CLASS WEEKEND) – Oliphint, Oliphint/Tipton, 59-94; Machen 99-132; 225-62; Clowney, 233-53 Bahnsen, 220-60 C. Course Paper 1. The research paper is due when the RTS catalog says it is due. 2. A late paper will be docked one full grade for each day it is late. So, for example, any paper turned in (i.e., postmarked or emailed) a calendar date after the due date, if it is an ‘A’ paper, will receive a ‘B,’ a ‘B’ paper will receive a ‘C,’ etc. 3. The research paper will be 50% of your grade. More on the paper below. 4 D. Final Exam 1. The final exam will be scheduled, administered, and submitted according to the RTS-H policy. It will cover all aspects of the course, but will focus primarily on the lecture material and key readings (Bahnsen/Oliphint). You may use an English Bible, without notes or helps, on your exam. 2. NOTA BENE: It is a violation of the Honor Code to use past exams, including exam 'blue books,' to study for this exam. No past papers, exams, etc. may be consulted. 3. If you think it would be useful to your growth in Christ (see Phil 2:14), I am happy to discuss your paper or exam grade with you. 4. The final exam will be 50% of your grade. Reading credit will factor into your final exam grade. VI. Course Paper Guidelines A. The Assignment 1. There is a specific focus to the paper in this class. It is to be a thoughtful apologetic analysis and response to one of the following essays: i. Mackie, J.L. "The Problem of Evil." In The Impossibility of God, 73-96. Edited by Michael Martin. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. ii. Overall, Christine. "Miracles as Evidence Against the Existence of God." In The Impossibility of God, 147-153. Edited by Michael Martin. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. iii. Kretzmann, Norman. "Omniscience and Immutability." In The Impossibility of God, 198-209. Edited by Michael Martin. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. iv. Martin, Michael. "A Disproof of the God of the Common Man." In The Impossibility of God, 232-241. Edited by Michael Martin. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. v. Hitchens, Christopher. "Introduction." In The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, xiii-xxvi. Edited by Christopher Hitchens. Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2007. vi. Sagan, Carl. "The God Hypothesis." In The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, 226-238. Edited by Christopher Hitchens. Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2007. vii. Dawkins, Richard. "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God." In The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, 287-304. Edited by Christopher Hitchens. Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2007. 2. You should begin working on your paper as soon as possible. Begin by perusing the essays, scanning a few arguments, and attempting to narrow down your topic. You must pick one of the seven essays listed above. The paper must be limited to ten pages (10), double-spaced, (page numbers do not include the required bibliography). A bibliography is required. Please format with 1-inch margins and use a 12 pt. font and number the pages. Any paper over ten pages (not including a cover page) will be deducted one letter grade per extra page (11 pages gets a "B" on an "A" paper, a "C" on a "B" paper, etc). Part of learning to write well includes not only 5 what to say, but how much to say. You have ten, and only ten, pages to say what needs to be said. 3. The paper is to consist of an apologetic argument with the author of the essay you choose. You must address the issues and the underlying presuppositions of the philosophy set forth. You must strive to be persuasive, and not simply enunciate your disagreements. In order to accomplish this, it is important to answer the authors in such a way as he or she would say, "Yes, you’ve understood my position all right." More than that, you must try to "sympathize" with the view you disagree with. Beyond this, though, the key is that in your refutation, you strive to apply the "transcendental approach" as you will have learned it in the course. 4. Because this paper is not your standard "research" paper, you should want to do enough research (and relevant footnoting) beyond Martin's The Impossibility of God or Hitchens' The Portable Atheist that will help you (a) explain your selected author's case against God (e.g., Is he/she drawing on other works or philosophical ideas? If so, what are they? Have others dealt with this issue before?); and (b) present your own apologetic response (e.g., Are there any historical or theological resources that helpfully support your critique and response?). The library and ATLA database are, of course, your best resources. Again, the nature of this assignment requires that you do enough research to provide a well-informed analysis and critique of your chosen essay. You will likely do more “standard” research in papers for other classes. B. General Guidelines 1. A standard research paper (of which this assignment is a "toned down" version—see VI.A.3 above) involves taking a topic, and doing independent investigation in it. This is more than a book report, but less than a thesis. The most significant feature is to be properly critical. There are two extremes to avoid, though. i. By criticism we do not mean preaching about all the bad things that are said, and leaving it there. ii. Nor does it mean you have to write a landmark article, using ideas no one has ever thought of. iii. It does mean you penetrate into the subject, getting to the bottom of what the author is saying, and reacting biblically, presuppositionally, and analytically to his or her article. Please set forth the arguments in a logical and informative way, and display your own point of view. If you borrow an idea, be sure to give credit for it by footnote. 2. A good apologetic paper of this sort, therefore, will contain at least three elements: i. A clear articulation of the author's claim(s). What is his argument? What are the premises to his argument? How do they fit together? Trace out the premises, structure, and conclusion. Imagine that after you've restated the argument in your own words, the author could look 6 at it and say, "Yes, that is my argument. You've got it." ii. An apologetic argument of your own with a clearly defined thesis statement. The thesis is the central, controlling idea of the paper. The thesis sums up your critique unbelieving position using covenantal apologetic approach. To support your thesis, take an aspect or aspects of the author's argument and explore it. What are the assumptions he is making (e.g., the mind is operating normally, God's attributes may be understood properly apart from Scripture, denial of the Creator-creature distinction, human reason as his ultimate authority, etc.)? Are those assumptions sound--and how do you know? Can you show it? Analyze the premises. Do they adequately support what he is saying? Has he misunderstood some aspect of the Christian worldview? Does it feature inconsistency, arbitrariness, or equivocation? Pick up these features and use them in a critical argument to show how his essay falls apart on its own terms. Make premises of your own and trace them towards a conclusion of your own. Please do not critique your author’s argument simply by stating that he/she does not believe the Bible. Show how his/her opposition to the truth of Scripture undermines the coherence of the argument you are analyzing. iii. A Christian rebuttal using careful, Scriptural reasoning. Show how the Christian system of doctrine, built on Scripture, answers whatever objections the essay poses. This will, of course, involve a biblical sense of mystery in many cases. Show how and why this doesn't mean your argument implodes. Consistent with a Reformed and covenantal transcendental argument, you might even try to show how only on the basis of the Christian worldview could the author even level his charges against Christianity. iv. Admittedly, aspect "(ii)" above is the most difficult and most significant part of the paper. Given that fact, ** please do not write, "I'm a Christian and so I disagree with this essay along the following lines."** All parties know you are a Christian and the atheist is not. The point is to engage the opponent's argument and show how it fails to live up to its own claims, on the basis of its own assumptions. THEN you'll be in a position to say, "Now, let's address this argument from an explicitly biblical basis..." (of course, you'll be reasoning from a "biblical basis" the whole time). Ten pages, showing you have grasped the basics of a covenantal or presuppositional apologetic method grounded in the theology of biblical Christianity (i.e., Reformed Christianity). 3. Standards for good writing are not universally ordained. Nevertheless, writing well is not purely a subjective judgment. There are great advantages to using a style that is clear, elegant, and credible. The best way to learn how to write is to follow a favorite, well-written author. There are useful guides on style as well, such as, Zinsser, On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction. 6th , rev. and updated. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1998; or Seech, Writing Philosophy Papers. Third ed. Belmont, et al.: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2000, or Hugo Bedau, Hugo Adam, and 7 St. Martin`s Press. Thinking and Writing About Philosophy. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin`s, 2002. C. Specific Directives 1. With apologies for what may sound like a list of picayune rules, I have found that it is better to say too much than too little. 2. Don`t forget a title, your name, the date, and the course name. 3. Please type, or use a word-processor. Use double-space, 1 inch margin, 12 pt. font. Include page numbers, footnotes (no endnotes) and bibliography. 4. There are various conventions for proper academic presentation/footnoting. The most important rule is consistency. If you are in doubt, check a manual, such as Kate L. Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. 7th ed. University of Chicago Press, 2007. 5. How frequently to footnote is also somewhat flexible. In general, if the idea you are presenting is someone else’s, you need to give credit. Long quotations, however well documented, are rarely appropriate. 6. Please respect the final deadline. The final draft needs to be in on time. There is no point in being penalized for a late paper. 7. Please make sure you read and understand the seminary’s Honor System and policy on plagiarism (Westminster's helpful examples can be found on pp.13-18 of this syllabus). D. About Grades 1. In this course, a B is considered a standard, good grade. It means you have fulfilled the assignment and have respected the basic principles outlined here. An A- means the work is of better-than-normal quality. An A means it is exceptional, and with some work could be worthy of publication. C means it is OK but needs some work. D means it is acceptable, though barely. Recommended Reading Anderson, James N. What's Your Worldview? An Interactive Approach to Life's Big Questions. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. Bedau, Hugo Adam, and St. Martin`s Press. Thinking and Writing About Philosophy. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin`s, 2002. Cowan, Stephen B., ed. Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000. Edgar, William. Reasons of the Heart. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1996. Packer, J. I. "Introductory Essay." In The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by John Owen, 1-25. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967. 8 Kelly, Stewart E. Thinking Well: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Boston, et al.: McGraw Hill, 2001. Mackie, J. L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press, 1982. Naugle, David K. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids, Michigan\Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. Jason, Gary. Critical Thinking: Developing an Effective Worldview. Australia, et al.: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning, 2001. Seech, Zachary. Writing Philosophy Papers. Third ed. Belmont, et al.: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2000. Smith, George H. Why Atheism? Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2000. Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. 4th ed. Edited by K. Scott Oliphint. Phillipsburg, NJ. Presbyterian and Reformed Co., 2008. ———. A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969. ———. A Survey of Christian Epistemology. Vol. II, In Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969. Tentative Course Outline I. Introduction A. What Matters Most? B. Definitions of Apologetics II. The Biblical Warrant for Apologetics A. Old Testament Warrant (1) Genesis 1-3 1. Adam as Covenant-bound Creature of God 2. Adam as Image of God 3. Adam as Apologist (2) OT "Holy War" (Theocratic Apologetics) B. New Testament Warrant (1) The Inaugurated Kingdom of God (2) The Wilderness Pilgrimage as Apologetic Paradigm (3) The Locus Classicus – 1 Pet 3:15 (4) Other Passages – 2 Cor 10:1-6 III. The Theological Basis of Apologetics A. Apologetics and Theology Generally (1) Organic Relation Between Scripture, Theology, and Apologetics (2) Blockhouse Method 9 1. Thomas Aquinas 2. William Lane Craig B. The Principia of Theology (1) Philosophical Background and Definition (2) Principium Essendi (3) Principium Cognoscendi 1. Archetypal and Ectypal Knowledge C. The Doctrine of Revelation (Principium Cognoscendi) (1) The "Covenantal Coordination" of General and Special Revelation (2) The Essence of Scripture (3) The Attributes of Scripture 1. The Necessity of Scripture a. The Necessity of General Revelation 2. The Authority of Scripture a. The Authority of General Revelation 3. The Sufficiency of Scripture a. The Sufficiency of General Revelation 4. The Perspicuity of Scripture a. The Perspicuity of General Revelation D. The Doctrine of God (Principium Essendi) (1) Divine Absoluteness (2) Divine Triunity (3) Divine Personality (4) Implications for a Christian Worldview E. The Doctrine of Man F. Common Grace IV. The Covenantal Apologetic Approach A. Van Til's "Transcendental" Method (1) Philosophical Background (2) Misconceptions and Clarifications B. Rational-Irrational Dialectic (1) Description (2) Theological Rationale V. The Covenantal Apologetic Approach Applied A. Examples (1) Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethic (2) Bruce Kuklick's "Critical" Historiography (3) Alex Rosenberg's Evolutionary Naturalism (4) Richard Dawkins' Atheistic Ethic / the Problem of Evil B. Paper Test Case: James Lang's Argument for the Impossibility of God 10