An introductory lecture on Biblical apologetics

I was asked to deliver a lecture on "Biblical apologetics" as part of a local church's series called "Waarheid Woensdae" (i.e. Truth on Wednesdays).

This article will serve as a resource for the attendees to access post-lecture, in addition to it serving as my preparation.

Outline

1. Introduction

2. What is apologetics?

3. For who is apologetics?

4. What do you believe as a Christian?

5. Defending the faith

6. The importance of gentleness and respect

7. Example: Islam

8. Example: Atheism

Introduction

Born in 1997, I was raised in a Reformed Christian home at a time when the Reformed Churches in South Africa were flourishing. The schools I attended were explicit in their Christian beliefs, my friends all considered themselves Christian and attended some form of church. There were no unbelievers (be they Muslims, Atheists, or Jehovah's Witnesses) when I grew up. It never even occurred to me that some people would even deny the Christian faith.

The one time the word "atheist" did pop up, was when we were watching the popular show called "Mythbusters", and somehow it was revealed that Jamie Hyneman (one of the hosts) is a sceptic and an atheist. I remember asking my mother what an atheist was, and she answered that an atheist was someone who worshipped themselves, someone who considered themselves their own god. 7-year-old me could not grasp this sort of absurdity. How could you "worship" yourself and not God? Atheists are crazy.

Fast forward 10 years and I encountered the first serious challenge to my Christian upbringing. My faith was waning as it merely became an accessory (mainly because of worldly influences that snuck into my life), and at the same time, I met an atheist in person for the first time. My older brother's friend was a smart guy and an atheist. He was the first person to ask me for "proof that God exists". He was accusing me of blindly believing what my parents taught me. I believed that his request was honest, and since belief in God and Christianity were so widely accepted around me, I assumed that it shouldn't be hard to prove that God exists at all. I remember sending email requests to certain ministries I could find online to literally "send me the proof that God exists so I can give it to my friend". Looking back, I was super naïve. However, in a very profound way, I was not wrong in my conviction (as we'll see later).

Unbeknownst to me, I was engaging in my first apologetic encounter.

1 Peter 3:14–16 tells us that every Christian is to be prepared to give an answer or “make a defence” when his faith is challenged. Apologetics, then, concerns the defence of the Christian faith against all forms of unbelief. The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek word ἀπολογία (apologia) in verse 15. This is a legal term, meaning a defence against an accusation in a court of law [1].

But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them [those who are out to harm you], nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

1 Peter 3:14–16, ESV

1 Peter was written to Christians who were facing severe persecution. They were persecuted simply because they were Christians. They were a suffering group, dispersed, experiencing unjust punishment from the government. Peter encourages them to remain faithful in times of distress, knowing that God will vindicate them and that they will certainly enjoy the salvation that the Lord has promised.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 further indicates that we are to demolish all arguments and lofty opinions that raise themselves against the knowledge of God. The passage further indicates that we have a divine power to destroy the strongholds of unbelief.

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5, ESV

These weapons of warfare are no doubt the spiritual weapons that Paul tells us about in Ephesians 6:

• The Belt of Truth

• The Breastplate of Righteousness

• The Gospel of Peace on our Feet

• The Shield of Faith

• The Helmet of Salvation

• The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (see also Hebrews 4:12).

These weapons come with the full authority of God, and not of man. There are therefore no stronger weapons we could use.

What is apologetics? (apologetics vs evangelism)

Cornelius Van Til, a man I've come to admire, was a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary. He was a pioneer in this field, and gave the following definition of apologetics:

Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life.

Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics

Embedded in this definition is the idea that a defence ought to be made against various kinds of unbelief, be it atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, general secularism etc.

William Edgar, an American apologist and professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, defines apologetics as follows:

[Apologetics is] the art of persuasion, the discipline which considers ways to commend and defend the living God to those without faith.

William Edgar, Christian Apologetics for a new century:

Edger expands the definition so it not only includes the vindication of the Christian position but also the commendation of the Christian position. It's not merely enough to destroy the arguments of unbelievers, but also to be persuasive in our argumentation. Remember, we want the unbeliever to partake in what Christ has done for us on the cross. As such, we need to show them that their view of themselves and the world and God is false and that they are culpable for their denial of the God who made them, that they've broken His law and that they stand in need of the Gospel.

But, once we add the commendation of the faith to the equation of apologetics, we seem to be getting into the waters of evangelism. Is apologetics merely evangelism?

Indeed, as Dr Mark Farnham notes, the goal of evangelism is to lead a person to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The goal of apologetics should be the same [2]. So if this is the case, what's the difference? In summary, apologetics is a distinct but inseparable part of evangelism. First, evangelism is concerned with the presentation of the gospel, and the methods used to do so. Second, apologetics is concerned with answering objections to the gospel, clearing away intellectual obstacles, and commending the Christian faith as the only legitimate answer to man’s predicament [3].

Farnham uses the concept of an all-wheel-drive car to explain the relationship. Usually, the front two tires do the work (i.e. evangelism), but when they start slipping (the unbeliever resists the Gospel or demands "proof"), the rear tires kick in (i.e. apologetics), and reasoned defence is presented to the unbeliever.

Apologetics, therefore, stands in service of evangelism. However, it can also serve a secondary purpose in instilling confidence in the Christian person's experience of the faith which can prove to be very fruitful to our spiritual lives.

For who is apologetics?

There was a time when apologetics did not feature in Christian circles at all. The word apologetics was not known, and only a select few Christians were aware that such a discipline exists and has a Scriptural mandate. In South Africa, the 20th century and early 21st century were not kind to the Reformed Church. A whole generation of fideists (faith independent of reason) was raised. With this, I mean that people were brought up in Christian homes in a Christian country with little to no opposition. This led to people who might genuinely believe the Bible and who genuinely trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation, but they are hopeless to offer an apologia when confronted by a mere Jehovah's Witness at their door.

I sometimes ponder how many of the elders in my local church will be able to withstand the arguments of the Jehovah's Witnesses and positively put forth their reason for believing that Jesus Christ is God Himself, the second person of the Trinitarian God. The arguments that Jehovah's Witnesses make today are rehashes of the same arguments that the Arians made at the first council of Nicea (325). The Arians were refuted by the elders of the church, and the Nicean creed was established which is still confessed by churches in the 21st century. Will our modern elders be able to do the same, or have they blindly (and might I respectfully add, lazily) accepted the Nicean creed at face value without truly making the contents of the creed their own? If a Christian finds them baffled by objections or arguments raised by non-Christians, it's because apologetics has been neglected.

Now, it is the case that Jehovah's Witnesses don't just knock on the doors of our elders. Nor is it only our pastors that will be confronted with atheists. The world has changed significantly from its deep 19th and 20th-century Christian roots. School children will be facing issues pertaining to unbelief and secularism (e.g. transgenderism, homosexuality) from an early age. Those of us who have corporate jobs will work with colleagues who are mostly secular and non-Christian. Much can be said about what caused this decline in our society, but the way back can be made much easier if we heed the Bible's call to ready ourselves to give a reason for the hope within us.

Basic knowledge of apologetics will instil confidence during evangelism, and evangelism brings the Gospel to the unbelieving world.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Romans 10:14-17, ESV

Apologetics is, therefore, a task given to all Christians and not to a select few. Most Christians still have not heard about apologetics, and of those who have, apologetics is a discipline for the advanced Christians who happened to study philosophy, micro-biology, archaeology, medicine and other disciplines. When they bought a book on apologetics or opened up YouTube to watch a debate, they were bombarded with difficult-to-follow arguments and deep presentations on the complexity of cells from both sides of the debate table. The general Christian feels discouraged when watching these debates. How will they ever be able to defend their faith against such highly learned unbelievers, if highly learned Christians can barely score a smackdown?

This article/lecture aims to lay a foundation for the general Christian not to necessarily go out and get a PhD in biology or astrophysics (like Dr Jason Lisle, Dr Michael Behe and Dr Stepehn Meyer to name a few), but from which they can truly stand their own when faced with unbelief at work, at home, or even in their own lives.

Apologetics, as we have established, is not for a select few Christians, as such, it shouldn't be necessary to obtain the highest education possible from secular institutions in order to defend the basic articles of the faith. This was for me the genius of Cornelius Van Til. Although Van Til himself is ironically incredibly hard to read and digest, his basic approach was simple enough to employ if you have knowledge of what it means to be a Christian, who God is, and what unbelief is. From this foundation, which you were supposed to get when you were catechised and from your own daily study of God's Word and from sitting under the faithful proclamation and exposition of God's Word.

What do you believe as a Christian?

So, what do you believe as a Christian? What is your worldview? Your worldview generally answers questions pertaining to the following (most of which have already been neatly summarised for us in the confessions of the Church):

1. Who am I?

2. What/who are other people?

3. What is reality?

4. Where does reality come from?

5. Where is reality going?

6. How do I know what I know?

7. What is right and wrong?

If you are a Christian, you wouldn't be very surprised to know that the Bible speaks very clearly on all six of the above points.

Who am I? I'm a creature made in the image of God. The first humans created were Adam and Eve. They were creatures created in a natural-religious fellowship with God. Given a simple command to obey God, they rebelled and attempted to be their own gods. Ever since then, the children they bore were children of wrath. However, God in mercy and grace has made provision. Ever since the fall, He has promised that someone born from Adam and Eve's lineage will crush the serpent's head who was instrumental in the initial deception. He will bore the wrath of God that is reserved for our sins on our behalf. This person came about 2000 years ago in the person of Jesus Christ. He died on the cross, bore the wrath of God on our behalf, died and rose from the dead. I have by the grace of God's election and the irresistible drawing of the Holy Spirit placed my trust in the work of Christ. In this, I've been made a new creature with a new heart and desire. In all things, I am dependent on my Creator. He sustains me and gives me food, water and air to breathe. I need not fear anything, for my God is in control.

What/who are other people? Other people are like me in that they are created in the image of God and sinners in need of a saviour. Some of them are also in Christ and are called my brothers and sisters. However, there are other people out there who have not yet, or will not place their trust in Jesus Christ. As a result, they remain dead in their sins. These unbelievers proceed in terms of a totalizing suppression and rejection of God’s one grand scheme of covenantal revelation (just like Adam and Eve did). Their unbelief rests in empty and deceptive presuppositions (Col. 2:8) that proceed from a mind that is darkened (Eph. 4:17), a will that is enslaved (Rom. 6:20; 8:7–8), and affections that are set on forbidden earthly things that cannot satisfy (Eph. 4:19). The heart of the unbeliever is turned against God in such rebellion that it “cannot” submit to God or please him (Rom. 8:7–8). Unbelief recoils at its core against the glory of the absolute and living Trinitarian persons who are the one living and true God. Unbelief reasons as though there is no absolute God who is absolutely revealed in nature and in Scripture (Gen. 3:1–6) [4].

What is reality? Reality is the sum total of all that is. As Christians, we believe in Creator and creation. Everything that is not God, is created and dependent on God. The world as we know it is a creation. Everything at work here (e.g. natural laws, natural objects) are what they are because of creation and providence. Nothing exists (other than God) that is not created, and nothing continues to exist that is not dependent on God's providence. As such, when the clock ticks on during the day, when the clouds form in the sky, or when I wake up in the morning and see the sun breaking the darkness of the night, it all happens because of God's providence. Moreover, time (i.e. history, present and future) are all in the hands of our Creator God. Historical events have significance specifically because they are events that God has ordained to come to pass. Future events will have significance as God continues to lead this creation to its prophesied end when Christ will return. Because the past present and future are in God's hands, this gives us a sufficient foundation for scientific inquiry. The Christian need not fear the problem of induction.

Where does reality come from? As is contained in the answer above, God is uncreated, and creation is created. God is absolute and independent, creation is mutable and dependent on God.

Where is reality going? God is active in His church, working all things according to His good and righteous council. The world will come to an end when Christ will return, and then comes the final judgement. Thereafter, those who trusted in the work of Christ will enter eternal bliss in the new creation, where they will live in harmony with God and each other. Those outside of Christ will bore the righteous punishment for their rebellion against God in hell.

How do I know what I know? In the same way that reality, in order to exist and continue existing, is dependent on creation and providence, so, in order for us to know anything in the world we are firstly dependent on revelation. Van Til wrote that we may characterize this whole situation (pertaining to reality and how we know reality) by saying that the creation of God is a revelation of God. God revealed himself in nature and God also revealed himself in the mind of man. Thus it is impossible for the mind of man to function except in an atmosphere of revelation. And every thought of man when it functioned normally in this atmosphere of revelation would express the truth as laid in the creation by God. We may therefore call a Christian epistemology a revelational epistemology [5].

What is right and wrong? The final aspect that we'll briefly summarise here pertains to ethics. Right and wrong ultimately find their origin in the being of God. God is good. He is the standard, the archetype of what it means to be good. Since this is the God who created the world and since there are no other influences at work that can possibly determine right and wrong which God must first consult, it follows that right and wrong are solely based on God's being. Some Christians also look toward a "natural law", however, we must keep in mind that we live in a fallen world with many things happening which might be considered "unnatural", e.g. death. God's written law in His Word, therefore, becomes the standard of all ethical judgements Christians make.

Van Til developed an illustration that is super helpful in summarising the Christian view on the above questions. It is said that before Van Til started a lecture, he would walk into the classroom and draw the following on the board:

Two simple circles represent everything that is. There is a Creator, and there is creation. Two arrows downward signify the absolute dependence of the creation on God and God's covenant with creation. There is nothing equally ultimate with God that He must consult.

Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Psalm 115:3, ESV

Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.

Job 9:33, KJV

A daysman is an arbiter or a mediator. Job in his confessions realised this profound truth about who God is. There is no standard above Him. There are no other gods besides Him. He is the only God, the absolute, independent, who does whatever He pleases. This is the "ultimate starting point" of the Biblical apologetic.

This is the God that we are seeking to defend when doing apologetics. The magnitude of the importance of this point will become clear in the following section.

Paul seems to mention something related to the above in Colossians 2:

Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge... See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits [elemental principles] of the world, and not according to Christ.

Colossians 2:3b, 8, ESV

What does Paul mean when he talks about the "elemental principles of this world"? It seems like Paul is using this phrase to expand on the type of philosophy that is according to "human tradition" and that is not "according to Christ".

Philosophy according to Christ is a philosophy that takes seriously what God has revealed in His Word, and what Christ has accomplished in us when we were made new creatures.

Unbelievers have a philosophy that is according to the elemental principles of this world and not according to Christ. "Elemental spirits," in this context, is a reference to the basic assumptions we use in our thinking (Galatians 4:3). If a person starts from a blatantly anti-spiritual standpoint, they are going to come to anti-spiritual conclusions. This, again, reminds us that fallen human wisdom can be at odds with Christ's teachings.

This gives us the context to talk about the procedure of defending the faith.

Defending the faith

So, knowing what apologetics is, who it is for, and what we believe as Christians, what is the procedure to defend the faith?

The Bible provides a two-step approach for answering "fools" (remember that calling unbelievers fools is a moral charge, not an intellectual one - like the fool that believes there is no God):

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Proverbs 26:4-5, ESV

We are not to answer the fool (unbeliever) according to his folly. That is, we explicitly reject the unbeliever's presuppositions. Unbelievers aren't natural observers of facts. They aren't honest seekers of the truth apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. The unbeliever has an axe to grind and wants to cast doubt on the existence of the God who presses on his conscious always and everywhere. If we accept the unbeliever's presuppositions (or starting point in the argument) and attempt to prove the Christian worldview from there, we'd be doomed to fail. The reason for this is because the unbeliever implicity assumes that God (if He exists) is someone far off, who needs to be diligently searched for before we can believe that He exists. The assumption in the mind of the unbeliever, therefore, is that there are principles that are greater than God Himself (i.e. brute facts). They, for example, might presuppose that the laws of logic are something independent of God's creation and providence that must be used to show the existence of God at the end of a syllogism.

Now, if God can only be found at the end of a syllogism, then the god that is proven is not the Christian God. If the laws of logic are independent of God, then we're necessarily talking about a finite god. If the laws of logic are human-mind-dependent, then any syllogism becomes inescapably subjective and again no proof of the Christian God can be furnished.

For this reason, we cannot answer the fool according to his folly (accept his current interpretation of himself and the world as valid), as then we'd be strengthening him in his unbelief. I might even go so far as to concede that if we answer the fool according to his folly, we ourselves become fools when we try to prove the Christian god this way, as it is not possible. The unbeliever is right that the Christian God does not and cannot exist if they implicitly presuppose it from the start!

So, how do we go about proving the Christian God to the unbeliever? Well, we answer the fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes. In other words, we don't accept the unbeliever's worldview as sufficient as far as it goes and then try to prove that God exists from there. Remember, the unbeliever denies the central truths of the Christian worldview (i.e. that they are made in the image of God, that they have a sin problem, that God is in control of the facts) Rather, we accept their worldview for the sake of argument and work backwards so to speak. We start poking lots and lots of holes. For example, if the unbeliever claims to be agnostic toward the existence of God, how does he know that the future will be like the past (the problem of induction), a principle that undergirds the entirety of the scientific endeavour? How can the unbeliever account for universal and immaterial laws of logic that we ought to adhere to when making an argument? How can the unbeliever appeal to a universal ethical law that requires us to be truthful when having discussions like this? How can the unbeliever know that the system of knowledge they have in their mind is reflective of the reality that it supposedly represents given that all the relations between facts and the relation between the facts and their mind are chance driven? Chance is the major problem-maker in the worldview of the unbeliever.

The type of argument used to prove the Christian God, therefore, needs to be a transcendental argument. That is an argument that seeks to know what necessary conditions need to be in place for commonly observed facts to be the case. Just as me walking on the floor of my home presupposes the beams underneath the floors holding it up, so our entire intelligible experience in this world depends on the creation and providence of God upholding us in every moment. There are no objective ethical values if God does not exist, yet we agree it is objectively wrong to murder. There is no such thing as knowledge if God does not exist, yet here we are arguing about facts we both claim to know.

The final step, after the unbeliever has been shown his folly, is to invite him into the Christian system so he can see how it is the only system that can make sense of all the truths that he holds dear, yet cannot justify given his unbelief (e.g. him loving his wife, believing murder is wrong, having a love for science).

Example: Islam

Some time ago I was a regular at a barber shop at Brooklyn Mall. The owner (let's call him Joe) was a very devout Muslim and we had great conversations about Islam and Christianity whenever I went in for a cut. After spending some time asking questions and getting to know what he believed as a Muslim (which might not be representative of all Muslims) I started poking some holes in his worldview.

You see, Joe really wanted to go to heaven, but also openly admitted to me that he has done some very bad things in his life and that he still struggles to rid himself of some selfish desires. I asked Joe if in his view God is righteous. Joe answered in the affirmative. "How then", I asked Joe, "is it possible for you to get into heaven given that you've already offended God who is righteous?" There was no answer forthcoming other than a claim that God will forgive him. But you see, a God who is righteous cannot let sin go unpunished, that would make Him unrighteous. And so there seems to be internal stress in the Islamic system as the concept of a proprietary sacrifice is missing. In this case, I was able to point Joe to the hope that is in Jesus Christ who already paid the penalty for our sins against Him. In the Christian system, God's justice, righteousness and mercy were all displayed very tangibly on the cross. There is no internal stress. I invited Joe to accept Jesus as His Lord and Saviour.

Joe was reluctant. "If Jesus already paid for my sins", he asked, "why don't I go out right now and take any woman I want and steal all the money I can get?" I knew why he asked this question. You see, earlier he mentioned to me how he struggles with lust and a love for money. I then showed Him that from the Christian perspective, Jesus didn't merely die for your sins and left you unchanged, but that the Holy Spirit also gives you a new heart such that your desires change. Joe went quiet. I distinctly remember that I hit something in the inward parts of his being.

I'm not sure how Joe is doing these days. I think I'll go for another cut in the near future. In my view, the above example was a very successful apologetic encounter with a Muslim. What I didn't do was accept the Qur'an as an authoritative source on the things of God and tried to expand his worldview so that he accepts the Bible as well. I assumed the truth of the Islamic system for the sake of argument when pointing out the internal difficulties, and then invited Him in the Christian worldview to see the hope that is offered to him there where Islam failed.

Example: Atheism

Recall how my mother told me that an atheist was someone who worshipped themselves. I'm not sure my mother realised the profound truth of her statement in light of what we've explicated above already. But this diagnosis of unbelief (and specifically atheism) is spot on.

The Bible has this to say about atheism:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

Psalm 14:1, ESV

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Romans 1: 19-23, ESV

The Bible is very clear that unbelievers (especially atheists) are moral fools for denying that which God has made plain to them. They are wicked in that they have exchanged the glory of God for mere images. They have opted to worship the creature, rather than the Creator (please note that the harsh description applies to Christians in their unrepentant state as well - we all need Jesus).

The atheist worships the creature in that they demand God appear to them to appease their own arbitrary standards of proof. They assume that their minds are the standard of what is possible and impossible, that the world they live in just is and that chance is one of the ultimate principles at work in their lives. Then they demand God fit into this system and appease them. Some even go so far as to claim that even if God were to appear to them, they still wouldn't worship Him because (according to their own standards), God is an immoral monster. This is nothing if not pure idolatry of the self.

The critique against atheism has multiple routes, some of which we already explored in this article when we discussed the apologetic procedure from the passage in Proverbs.

The importance of gentleness and respect

When engaging in apologetics (which sometimes means getting acquainted with sophisticated arguments and philosophy) we must be sure to guard our hearts against the sin of pride. The apologist must be humble in his task, and not be quarrelsome (i.e. give a reasoned defence to save face or to not feel stupid).

John Calvin writes in his commentary on 1 Peter 3:15 that:

[Gentleness and respect] is a most necessary admonition; for unless our minds are endued with meekness, contentions will immediately break forth. And meekness is set in opposition to pride and vain ostentation, and also to excessive zeal. To this he justly adds fear; for where reverence for God prevails, it tames all the ferocity of our minds, and it will especially cause us to speak calmly of God’s mysteries. For contentious disputes arise from this, because many think less honourably than they ought of the greatness of divine wisdom, and are carried away by profane audacity.

The Biblical apologetic is very powerful in that it breaks down the intellectual strongholds of unbelievers. If this is not done with gentleness and respect, it is done for selfish reasons. As Calvinists, we need to remember that we ought not to take pride in the fact that we are on the Christian side and defending the faith. What we are and who we are is purely based on the grace of God. If God had willed it otherwise, it would be the unbeliever who was the Christian arguing against the futility of our own unbelief. In the midst of the argument, we must not be carried away by contentious disputes. We must fear the Lord and speak calmly of the mysteries of the Christian faith. All of this forms part of our witness and might be a means that God uses to bring our unbelieving friends into the faith.

References

[1] Farnham, Mark J. Every Believer Confident: Apologetics for the Ordinary Christian. Deep River Books. Kindle Edition.

[2[ Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Tipton, Lane. Van Til's Trinitarian Theology. Reformed Forum. Kindle Edition.

[5] Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology p.1