What do you think?
Rate this book
Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith
Challenging the dominant Van Tillian approach in Reformed apologetics, this book by a leading expert in contemporary Reformed theology sets forth the principles that undergird a classic Reformed approach. J. V. Fesko's detailed exegetical, theological, and historical argument takes as its starting point the classical Reformed understanding of the "two books" of God's revelation: nature and Scripture. Believers should always rest on the authority of Scripture but also can and should appeal to the book of nature in the apologetic task.
260 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 19, 2019
46 people are currently reading
245 people want to read
About the author
J.V. Fesko
48 books52 followersJ. V. Fesko graduated from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, UK, with an earned Ph.D. in theology. Dr. Fesko's interests include systematic theology, applied soteriology (union with Christ, justification and sanctification, and the ordo salutis), sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed dogmatics, as well as the integration of biblical and systematic theology. He was the pastor of Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian church from 1998 to 2009. He is now presently the Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California. He is also an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
March 27, 2019
5 stars not because the book is perfect, but because it's just so incredibly timely and needed in our day. It's a book that's needed to be written for years. But it's also well-researched, clear, and convincing for the inclusion of the classically reformed approach to defending the faith. A few bullet points here:
-It's not a perfect book. Fesko overstates his position at times. He can be a bit simplistic and broad-brushing at others. A fuller treatment is needed but would take quite a bit more work. So I would say this is a helpful first step in an area where much more work needs to be done.
-All of the press has been that Fesko slams Van Til. But I didn't really think so. Of course he is critical of VT and of presuppositionalism at times, but the greater emphasis lies in showing the inconsistencies of VT, and most particularly, how many of his followers have taken his ideas to unfortunate extremes.
-The gist of the book: he shows how VT and others have moved away, implicitly and explicitly at times, from using the revelation of God in the book of nature as a useful and necessary tool for defending the faith. After all, in his apologetic, the Apostle Paul "appealed to nature, providence, natural law and the principles of justice, and even to pagan poets."
-In short, rather than advocating one particular approach (presuppositionalism or classical, for example), Fesko argues that we need to be flexible and use such that fits the occasion, rather than being locked into one.
-His chapters on Aquinas, worldviews, and his concluding chapter, are by far the best and are worth the price of the book.
-My summary of the polemics: VT is extreme, he's a closet-Kantian, and he misunderstood, poorly studied, and borderline slandered Aquinas. Believers and unbelievers are not epistemologically separated from one another, as we have many 'common notions' (and this is the position of historic, Reformed Theology). We should see and appreciate the knowledge and contributions of unbelievers in our world and make use of them. There really is no such thing as 'opposing worldviews', for we all are made in the image of God and are the recipients of God's common grace and natural revelation, and thus we all have essentially the same 'worldview' deep down (though our conclusions/implications drawn are different). Neo-Calvinism and its argument of 'secular and sacred divides', where they charge some with 'unduly compartmentalizing life into sacred and secular realms', are based upon faulty Kantian methodology and philosophy, and is inconsistent with classical reformed theology and scripture.
-And finally, to be clear, Fesko emphatically holds up: the supremacy and rule of God through Christ in all things (though He rules the sacred and the common realm in different ways); the necessity of special revelation to lead to the true knowledge of God; the necessity of the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit for anyone to be converted and come to the knowledge of the truth; and the reality that sinful people, though sharing our epistemology, contributing positively to society based upon God's natural revelation, nevertheless suppress and distort the book of God's nature and will be left without excuse.
All that to say - one of the best books I've read in awhile, if nothing else than because Fesko says what I've been hoping and longing for someone to say for years. VT's influence has led to so much fundamentalism, biblicism, and Christian triumphalism (intellectual and cultural), that I hope Fesko's work will serve to bring balance and draw Reformed Christians back closer to their intellectual and doctrinal roots.
-It's not a perfect book. Fesko overstates his position at times. He can be a bit simplistic and broad-brushing at others. A fuller treatment is needed but would take quite a bit more work. So I would say this is a helpful first step in an area where much more work needs to be done.
-All of the press has been that Fesko slams Van Til. But I didn't really think so. Of course he is critical of VT and of presuppositionalism at times, but the greater emphasis lies in showing the inconsistencies of VT, and most particularly, how many of his followers have taken his ideas to unfortunate extremes.
-The gist of the book: he shows how VT and others have moved away, implicitly and explicitly at times, from using the revelation of God in the book of nature as a useful and necessary tool for defending the faith. After all, in his apologetic, the Apostle Paul "appealed to nature, providence, natural law and the principles of justice, and even to pagan poets."
-In short, rather than advocating one particular approach (presuppositionalism or classical, for example), Fesko argues that we need to be flexible and use such that fits the occasion, rather than being locked into one.
-His chapters on Aquinas, worldviews, and his concluding chapter, are by far the best and are worth the price of the book.
-My summary of the polemics: VT is extreme, he's a closet-Kantian, and he misunderstood, poorly studied, and borderline slandered Aquinas. Believers and unbelievers are not epistemologically separated from one another, as we have many 'common notions' (and this is the position of historic, Reformed Theology). We should see and appreciate the knowledge and contributions of unbelievers in our world and make use of them. There really is no such thing as 'opposing worldviews', for we all are made in the image of God and are the recipients of God's common grace and natural revelation, and thus we all have essentially the same 'worldview' deep down (though our conclusions/implications drawn are different). Neo-Calvinism and its argument of 'secular and sacred divides', where they charge some with 'unduly compartmentalizing life into sacred and secular realms', are based upon faulty Kantian methodology and philosophy, and is inconsistent with classical reformed theology and scripture.
-And finally, to be clear, Fesko emphatically holds up: the supremacy and rule of God through Christ in all things (though He rules the sacred and the common realm in different ways); the necessity of special revelation to lead to the true knowledge of God; the necessity of the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit for anyone to be converted and come to the knowledge of the truth; and the reality that sinful people, though sharing our epistemology, contributing positively to society based upon God's natural revelation, nevertheless suppress and distort the book of God's nature and will be left without excuse.
All that to say - one of the best books I've read in awhile, if nothing else than because Fesko says what I've been hoping and longing for someone to say for years. VT's influence has led to so much fundamentalism, biblicism, and Christian triumphalism (intellectual and cultural), that I hope Fesko's work will serve to bring balance and draw Reformed Christians back closer to their intellectual and doctrinal roots.
June 7, 2022
Fesko, J. V. Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019.
There is no way to write a review of this book that minimizes the potential for a literary bloodbath. I will start by stating the thesis in the most minimal of terms. This allows me to divide the review in three parts: 1) how the Reformed orthodox viewed prolegomena and natural theology; 2) overlap between classic Reformed and Van Tillian methods; 3) disagreements with Van Til.
Side bar: I’ve read James Anderson’s series of reviews on this book. Anderson agrees with much of Fesko’s presentation of natural law and common notions. He does a good job outlining Fesko’s position.
The hero of this book is the Puritan Anthony Burgess. From Burgess, Fesko presents an eloquent and compelling account of the importance of the book of nature and “common notions.” The law of nature is the common notions which are on our hearts (Fesko 15). For Burgess, the boundary of the law of nature is “the moral law delivered by Moses at Sinai” (16).
Aquinas: the principles of natural law are the same for all people. The conclusions they draw are not (Aquinas, ST Ia-IIae, qu. 94, quoted in Fesko 34). As Fesko, commenting elsewhere on Turretin, notes, “Immediate principles admit, but the noetic effects of sin due to the fall corrupt mediate principles” (43).
Although the chapter on Calvin explains Calvin’s views, it serves an equally important function: it rebuts the “Christological monism” that tempted historians and apologists for the last 200 years. That’s where people seek a unifying principle and deduce the rest of doctrine from it. This really only works with German idealism. In short, Calvin did not see Christ as the unifying principle of all theology and then deduced everything from him.
Following Richard Muller and others, Fesko notes that scholasticism was simply a method. It involved lectio, meditatio, and quaestio/disputatio. It was a classroom format. You can find elements of it in Calvin. Contrast the Beveridge translation of 1.16.9 with the Battles translation and you can see Calvin use scholastic terminology and methods.
I am not going to spend much time on Fesko’s analysis of Calvin. The literature is overwhelming. I do not think Calvin is a Thomist, yet it is obvious that Calvin is not saying what Van Til thinks he is saying.
Regarding Thomas Aquinas, Fesko’s main complaint is that Van Til gave nearly zero evidence that he actually read Thomas. Perhaps he did. That does not come out in his writings. We will cut a few moves off at the pass. According to presuppositionalists, Thomas is wrong for trying to synthesize Aristotle with Christ. However, it is not clear why Thomas is wrong for using concepts from Aristotle, yet it is fine for Van Til to use even more dubious concepts from Kant.
Regarding some of Thomas’s arguments, Fesko notes they are quia, not propter quid. In other words, they reason from effect to the cause, not cause to the effect. This is important because we cannot know God in his essence; therefore, we cannot reason from God to the world (78ff).
My favorite chapter is the one on worldview. There is a sense in which worldview talk is legitimate. If by it one means a way of viewing the world, then there is no big problem. That is not how it is used in the literature. Historic worldview theory (what Fesko labels HWT) seeks to deduce our understanding of reality from a single principle and provide an exhaustive (or near enough) explanation of reality (98).
Not surprisingly, Van Til embraces HWT. It provides “the true interpretation of human experience” (Van Til, CA, 38, quoted in Fesko 106). This aspect of Van Til’s is fairly uncontroversial, so I will forgo the rest of the quotations. The problem is that if HWT is true, then there really cannot be any common notions between believer and unbeliever.
James Anderson, though, has demonstrated that Van Til held to common notions, at least in theory. Van Til rejected this later on (My Credo, JA, 21). There he moved to common ground, by which he meant the image of God.
Conclusion of the chapter: if one holds to HWT as defined above, then there is no legitimate place for natural revelation and common notions. Moreover, Scripture itself does not say that men will have unique knowledge regarding creation. God specifically tells Job there are a number of things that he will not know (Job 40:4).
I am tempted to skip the section on transcendental arguments. Fesko does not disagree with them in theory. He says they can be useful when you find the rare unbeliever who has a coherent worldview.
He includes a chapter on Dooyeweerd. I predicted in 2005 that there would be a return to Dooyeweerd’s thought in the Reformed world. It was a strange prediction, as Dooyeweerd is often incomprehensible. It turned out to be true, though.
To some extent for Van Til, but largely for Dooyeweerd, historic Christian thought has been plagued by the nature-grace dualism. This occurs when man absolutizes one of the modal spheres, usually the temporal one. Fesko counters this charge by noting a) Dooyeweerd mistakes duality for dualism, b) provides little analysis with the key sources, and c) uses a similar methodology to Adolf von Harnack.
Against this dualism, Dooyeweerd suggests the biblical ground motive of “creation, fall, and redemption.” Here we run into a problem. Dooyeweerd had elsewhere criticized Van Til for being too rationalist in getting his ideas from the Bible. For Dooyeweerd, we cannot use the bible as an object of theology. The problem, one among many, of which Dooyeweerd seems unaware, is that he got his biblical ground motive from the Bible!
Moreover, it is not true that Thomas Aquinas (and by extension the WCF) held to such a dualism regarding body and soul. For Thomas, the soul in-forms the body. It is the form of the body. It is not a ghost in the machine. It is one organic unity. Dooyeweerd mistook Thomas for Descartes.
And Dooyeweerd does not apply the same criticism to Calvin. Calvin specifically praised Plato on the soul (ICR, 1.15.16)! Calvin is not this pure font of only biblical theology. Even worse, Calvin said it was okay to start with the knowledge of man. The ordo docendi is not the same as the ordo essendi.
When we say that Dooyeweerd used the same methodology that Harnack did, we are not saying that he was a liberal who held the same beliefs. Rather, both believed that pure Christiant thought was corrupted by Greek philosophy.
In his concluding chapter on epistemology, Fesko shows how Van Tillians and classical Reformed can work together. Fesko’s comments on covenant sound very Van Tillian. Man’s covenantal origin allows us to embrace the book of nature.
With Van Tillians, we agree that epistemology is about wisdom (Fesko 198). Man submits to God’s authority, remembers his law, and responds with praise. We see a good example of this in Psalm 19.
Forgetting God’s law is the opposite of knowing. It is the same as disobedience. Van Til could have written this section.
There is one category confusion, though, that many Van Tillians make.They confuse axiology (the theory of value) with epistemology. An unbeliever will almost always have the wrong axiology. That does not mean he will have the wrong epistemology.
Conclusion
This book should not be seen as an attack on Van Til. The chapters on historic Reformed methodology are beyond dispute. The Reformed used the book of nature and believed in common notions. Nor is this book uncritical of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was wrong on the donum superadditum. Finally, the real criticisms of Van Til should be appreciated for what they are. Van Til did not engage in serious historical analysis. That does not mean the rest of his project is wrong. Fesko even thinks the Transcendental Argument has its place (although I have my concerns).
There is no way to write a review of this book that minimizes the potential for a literary bloodbath. I will start by stating the thesis in the most minimal of terms. This allows me to divide the review in three parts: 1) how the Reformed orthodox viewed prolegomena and natural theology; 2) overlap between classic Reformed and Van Tillian methods; 3) disagreements with Van Til.
Side bar: I’ve read James Anderson’s series of reviews on this book. Anderson agrees with much of Fesko’s presentation of natural law and common notions. He does a good job outlining Fesko’s position.
The hero of this book is the Puritan Anthony Burgess. From Burgess, Fesko presents an eloquent and compelling account of the importance of the book of nature and “common notions.” The law of nature is the common notions which are on our hearts (Fesko 15). For Burgess, the boundary of the law of nature is “the moral law delivered by Moses at Sinai” (16).
Aquinas: the principles of natural law are the same for all people. The conclusions they draw are not (Aquinas, ST Ia-IIae, qu. 94, quoted in Fesko 34). As Fesko, commenting elsewhere on Turretin, notes, “Immediate principles admit, but the noetic effects of sin due to the fall corrupt mediate principles” (43).
Although the chapter on Calvin explains Calvin’s views, it serves an equally important function: it rebuts the “Christological monism” that tempted historians and apologists for the last 200 years. That’s where people seek a unifying principle and deduce the rest of doctrine from it. This really only works with German idealism. In short, Calvin did not see Christ as the unifying principle of all theology and then deduced everything from him.
Following Richard Muller and others, Fesko notes that scholasticism was simply a method. It involved lectio, meditatio, and quaestio/disputatio. It was a classroom format. You can find elements of it in Calvin. Contrast the Beveridge translation of 1.16.9 with the Battles translation and you can see Calvin use scholastic terminology and methods.
I am not going to spend much time on Fesko’s analysis of Calvin. The literature is overwhelming. I do not think Calvin is a Thomist, yet it is obvious that Calvin is not saying what Van Til thinks he is saying.
Regarding Thomas Aquinas, Fesko’s main complaint is that Van Til gave nearly zero evidence that he actually read Thomas. Perhaps he did. That does not come out in his writings. We will cut a few moves off at the pass. According to presuppositionalists, Thomas is wrong for trying to synthesize Aristotle with Christ. However, it is not clear why Thomas is wrong for using concepts from Aristotle, yet it is fine for Van Til to use even more dubious concepts from Kant.
Regarding some of Thomas’s arguments, Fesko notes they are quia, not propter quid. In other words, they reason from effect to the cause, not cause to the effect. This is important because we cannot know God in his essence; therefore, we cannot reason from God to the world (78ff).
My favorite chapter is the one on worldview. There is a sense in which worldview talk is legitimate. If by it one means a way of viewing the world, then there is no big problem. That is not how it is used in the literature. Historic worldview theory (what Fesko labels HWT) seeks to deduce our understanding of reality from a single principle and provide an exhaustive (or near enough) explanation of reality (98).
Not surprisingly, Van Til embraces HWT. It provides “the true interpretation of human experience” (Van Til, CA, 38, quoted in Fesko 106). This aspect of Van Til’s is fairly uncontroversial, so I will forgo the rest of the quotations. The problem is that if HWT is true, then there really cannot be any common notions between believer and unbeliever.
James Anderson, though, has demonstrated that Van Til held to common notions, at least in theory. Van Til rejected this later on (My Credo, JA, 21). There he moved to common ground, by which he meant the image of God.
Conclusion of the chapter: if one holds to HWT as defined above, then there is no legitimate place for natural revelation and common notions. Moreover, Scripture itself does not say that men will have unique knowledge regarding creation. God specifically tells Job there are a number of things that he will not know (Job 40:4).
I am tempted to skip the section on transcendental arguments. Fesko does not disagree with them in theory. He says they can be useful when you find the rare unbeliever who has a coherent worldview.
He includes a chapter on Dooyeweerd. I predicted in 2005 that there would be a return to Dooyeweerd’s thought in the Reformed world. It was a strange prediction, as Dooyeweerd is often incomprehensible. It turned out to be true, though.
To some extent for Van Til, but largely for Dooyeweerd, historic Christian thought has been plagued by the nature-grace dualism. This occurs when man absolutizes one of the modal spheres, usually the temporal one. Fesko counters this charge by noting a) Dooyeweerd mistakes duality for dualism, b) provides little analysis with the key sources, and c) uses a similar methodology to Adolf von Harnack.
Against this dualism, Dooyeweerd suggests the biblical ground motive of “creation, fall, and redemption.” Here we run into a problem. Dooyeweerd had elsewhere criticized Van Til for being too rationalist in getting his ideas from the Bible. For Dooyeweerd, we cannot use the bible as an object of theology. The problem, one among many, of which Dooyeweerd seems unaware, is that he got his biblical ground motive from the Bible!
Moreover, it is not true that Thomas Aquinas (and by extension the WCF) held to such a dualism regarding body and soul. For Thomas, the soul in-forms the body. It is the form of the body. It is not a ghost in the machine. It is one organic unity. Dooyeweerd mistook Thomas for Descartes.
And Dooyeweerd does not apply the same criticism to Calvin. Calvin specifically praised Plato on the soul (ICR, 1.15.16)! Calvin is not this pure font of only biblical theology. Even worse, Calvin said it was okay to start with the knowledge of man. The ordo docendi is not the same as the ordo essendi.
When we say that Dooyeweerd used the same methodology that Harnack did, we are not saying that he was a liberal who held the same beliefs. Rather, both believed that pure Christiant thought was corrupted by Greek philosophy.
In his concluding chapter on epistemology, Fesko shows how Van Tillians and classical Reformed can work together. Fesko’s comments on covenant sound very Van Tillian. Man’s covenantal origin allows us to embrace the book of nature.
With Van Tillians, we agree that epistemology is about wisdom (Fesko 198). Man submits to God’s authority, remembers his law, and responds with praise. We see a good example of this in Psalm 19.
Forgetting God’s law is the opposite of knowing. It is the same as disobedience. Van Til could have written this section.
There is one category confusion, though, that many Van Tillians make.They confuse axiology (the theory of value) with epistemology. An unbeliever will almost always have the wrong axiology. That does not mean he will have the wrong epistemology.
Conclusion
This book should not be seen as an attack on Van Til. The chapters on historic Reformed methodology are beyond dispute. The Reformed used the book of nature and believed in common notions. Nor is this book uncritical of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was wrong on the donum superadditum. Finally, the real criticisms of Van Til should be appreciated for what they are. Van Til did not engage in serious historical analysis. That does not mean the rest of his project is wrong. Fesko even thinks the Transcendental Argument has its place (although I have my concerns).
November 25, 2019
After reading this book no unprejudiced reader can fail to see that Van Tillian presuppositionalism is a novel teaching that will have deeply damaging effects on the whole system of Reformed theology. It proves the truthfulness of my paraphrase of John Henry Newman, "To be deep in the Reformed scholastics is to cease to be a presuppositionalist."
While defenders of presuppositionalism will inevitably claim that John Fesko has misrepresented Cornelius Van Til, I would actually fault the author for not being hard enough on his opponents. (Okay, I would reserve judgment about somethings he says concerning other figures he cites, but the analysis of Van Til himself is pretty fair.) Some space could have been given to impact of Van Tillianism upon theology proper, Trinitarianism, and soteriology.
While defenders of presuppositionalism will inevitably claim that John Fesko has misrepresented Cornelius Van Til, I would actually fault the author for not being hard enough on his opponents. (Okay, I would reserve judgment about somethings he says concerning other figures he cites, but the analysis of Van Til himself is pretty fair.) Some space could have been given to impact of Van Tillianism upon theology proper, Trinitarianism, and soteriology.
December 5, 2021
Welp, I think Fesko just successfully finished the job. I think I’m officially ready to complete my journey from Westminster East to Westminster West (IYKYK).
February 9, 2023
The main idea is that Reformed Christians should recover natural law and natural theology as they are key components of the historic reformed tradition which have recently been lost or at least greatly deemphasized in the wake of the presuppositional approach of Cornelius Vantil and his disciples.
Although presuppositional apologetics is described as a useful tool in the apologist’s tool box this book argues strongly against viewing it as the end all be all of apologetics.
The book uses historical primary sources extensively to show where Vantil misunderstood the historic Reformed tradition. Vantil basically never did exegesis to buttress his statements and also had a very poor knowledge of primary sources as he rarely cited them and often attributed views to historical figures that run directly counter to what those individuals themselves wrote.
Basically Fesko dunks on Vantil for 200 plus pages.
His point is made. Presuppositional apologetics is no better and no worse then the apologetic approach of Aquinas. Just as Aquinas bridged the Gospel to an Aristotelian culture, Vantil bridges the Gospel to a Kantian culture.
Fesko points out that Vantil is just as much of a “synthesis theolgian” as he accuses Aquinas of being. Vantil is just dialoguing with and basing some of his ideas on Kant and Hegel whereas Aquinas did so with Aristotle.
Disclaimer: (I do like presuppositional apologetics and use these methods myself. But I found the book helpful in critiquing the sort of overreach that says presuppositional apologetics is the only right way and that to use any other method is actually sinful.)
Although presuppositional apologetics is described as a useful tool in the apologist’s tool box this book argues strongly against viewing it as the end all be all of apologetics.
The book uses historical primary sources extensively to show where Vantil misunderstood the historic Reformed tradition. Vantil basically never did exegesis to buttress his statements and also had a very poor knowledge of primary sources as he rarely cited them and often attributed views to historical figures that run directly counter to what those individuals themselves wrote.
Basically Fesko dunks on Vantil for 200 plus pages.
His point is made. Presuppositional apologetics is no better and no worse then the apologetic approach of Aquinas. Just as Aquinas bridged the Gospel to an Aristotelian culture, Vantil bridges the Gospel to a Kantian culture.
Fesko points out that Vantil is just as much of a “synthesis theolgian” as he accuses Aquinas of being. Vantil is just dialoguing with and basing some of his ideas on Kant and Hegel whereas Aquinas did so with Aristotle.
Disclaimer: (I do like presuppositional apologetics and use these methods myself. But I found the book helpful in critiquing the sort of overreach that says presuppositional apologetics is the only right way and that to use any other method is actually sinful.)
March 28, 2019
I did find this to be very good. Fesko offers a constructive and sympathetic response to some aspects of Van Til’s apologetics that need adjustment. The strength of Fesko’s book is to draw attention to a robust view of crated reality, and God’s revelation in nature. Our apologetics and evangelism must be fearlessly creational, recognising that the train if the gospel runs on the tracks of created reality. That the Word enters the arena of Creation and accords with it.
March 30, 2025
Dude this was awesome! As one reviewer put it, this book from the final straw in my journey from Westminster east to Westminster West. I’ve fully bitten that sandwich (For those don’t know about that, it’s theology nerd stuff. You’re fine)
“Transcendental presuppositionalism” in epistemology (how we know things) and apologetics (defending the faith) was a jersey I wore many for years…this book took down that position’s theological, biblical, and philosophical inconsistency bit by bit.
Long story short:
- God relates to the unbeliever as Creator through natural law and natural revelation.
- God relates to the believer as Redeemer through both natural law & revelation, but also through revealed law & special revelation
- As such: 1) believers need not feel burdened by using natural law and even insights from unbelievers since we live in a world of common notions shared between Christians and non-Christians, since we are both made in the image of God, 2) believers can truly engage in apologetic and evangelistic conversations that use evidence, philosophy, logic, and theology.
All truth, necessarily speaking, is God’s truth.
Also, JV Fesko is the man and someone I’d consider a theological mentor from afar at this point.
His razor sharp precision and humble presentation is a great example for us all as we engage with the world around us and other theologians in the church.
“Transcendental presuppositionalism” in epistemology (how we know things) and apologetics (defending the faith) was a jersey I wore many for years…this book took down that position’s theological, biblical, and philosophical inconsistency bit by bit.
Long story short:
- God relates to the unbeliever as Creator through natural law and natural revelation.
- God relates to the believer as Redeemer through both natural law & revelation, but also through revealed law & special revelation
- As such: 1) believers need not feel burdened by using natural law and even insights from unbelievers since we live in a world of common notions shared between Christians and non-Christians, since we are both made in the image of God, 2) believers can truly engage in apologetic and evangelistic conversations that use evidence, philosophy, logic, and theology.
All truth, necessarily speaking, is God’s truth.
Also, JV Fesko is the man and someone I’d consider a theological mentor from afar at this point.
His razor sharp precision and humble presentation is a great example for us all as we engage with the world around us and other theologians in the church.
Want to read
July 7, 2021Here are some comments by James Anderson:
Introduction
The Light of Nature
Common Notions
Calvin
Thomas Aquinas
Worldview
Transcendental Arguments
Dualisms
The Book of Nature and Apologetics
Wrap-Up
Introduction
The Light of Nature
Common Notions
Calvin
Thomas Aquinas
Worldview
Transcendental Arguments
Dualisms
The Book of Nature and Apologetics
Wrap-Up
November 4, 2019
Bel essai. 5 étoiles, non pas parce que le livre serait parfait mais parce qu'il est nécessaire pour l'Eglise de nos jours.
Il m'a été utile non pas tellement dans la critique de Cornelius Van Til au sujet duquel j'avais déjà assez lu mais plutôt pour répondre à Dooyeweerd.
Le rejet de l'apologétique classique est un écart à l'orthodoxie réformée.
Il m'a été utile non pas tellement dans la critique de Cornelius Van Til au sujet duquel j'avais déjà assez lu mais plutôt pour répondre à Dooyeweerd.
Le rejet de l'apologétique classique est un écart à l'orthodoxie réformée.
April 16, 2020
Still thinking about it. Hopefully a quick review coming soon.
September 13, 2019
Fesko’s book is helpful in that it clearly states the goodness of natural law and its lineage in Reformed thought. The chapters on Calvin, Aquinas, and Dualisms were excellent. Also, the arguments for using evidences and proofs were persuasive, although I wish there was more discussion on using evidence to appeal to “covenant breakers.”
As to the negatives of the book, it was disappointing to see that many of the opponents Fesko addresses are treated unfairly and mischaracterized as claiming something they are not. A few representative examples:
(1) Fesko seems to suggest that Van Til denies all knowledge to the unbeliever and that he had no place for natural knowledge in his apologetic method. But that is not the case. Van Til agrees that all men know God truly and clearly through nature. “Created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he cannot see exhaustively. Man does not need to know exhaustively in order to know truly and certainly.” (Van Til, Nature and Scripture).
(2) Fesko makes the exact same point (on page 123) as Oliphint does elsewhere, but he claims to be correcting the presuppositionalist view. Fesko opposes worldview theory by saying: “The non-Christian’s problem is not primarily epistemological but ethical.” Which is exactly what Oliphint has said elsewhere: “It is idolatry, therefore, that lies at the root of our sin, and thus at the root of our irrationality. . . Our idolatry stems not from ignorance . . . It results always from a perversion of the truth, a twisting of reality.” (Oliphint, The Irrationality of Unbelief).
(3) On page 115, Oliphint is again criticized for taking sola scriptura too far in his epistemology. However, Fesko and Oliphint seem to be in agreement in their approach on this point. Oliphint has said, regarding the fundamentals of Christian epistemology, that "[w]e affirm, then, a revelational epistemology, in which the basic truths of our theory of knowledge, derived as they are from the nature of the world, are taken initially from the teaching of God's special revelation and from the reality of God's general revelation." (Reasons for Faith, 341). Fesko's approach (presented on 195 - 214) appears to be largely the same. Both Fesko and Oliphint affirm the classic Reformed epistemological framework of principium essendi and principium congnoscendi.
This make me suspicious of Fesko's reading of others, such as Dooyeweerd, who I have not read myself.
The Worldview chapter is by far the weakest in the book simply because the worldview theory offered there is a sad caricature which no one would defend. Who is arguing that Scripture tells us how to do calculus? Claiming that we need a comprehensive worldview which grounds our understanding of reality, does not mean that worldview theory claims to offer “exhaustive” detail on all of reality.
A lot of space could have been saved if the book would have recognized the common ground and addressed the difference in emphasis and the clear disagreements between Van Til and classical Reformed apologists. The last chapter makes clear that the space between the two views is much more narrow than this book alleges. Having said this, Reforming Apologetics is still a timely and necessary book in so far as it bolsters the validity of common notions and natural knowledge (which Van Tilians largely agree with, but perhaps should emphasize more) and also in so far as it provides a superb historical view of the landscape.
As to the negatives of the book, it was disappointing to see that many of the opponents Fesko addresses are treated unfairly and mischaracterized as claiming something they are not. A few representative examples:
(1) Fesko seems to suggest that Van Til denies all knowledge to the unbeliever and that he had no place for natural knowledge in his apologetic method. But that is not the case. Van Til agrees that all men know God truly and clearly through nature. “Created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he cannot see exhaustively. Man does not need to know exhaustively in order to know truly and certainly.” (Van Til, Nature and Scripture).
(2) Fesko makes the exact same point (on page 123) as Oliphint does elsewhere, but he claims to be correcting the presuppositionalist view. Fesko opposes worldview theory by saying: “The non-Christian’s problem is not primarily epistemological but ethical.” Which is exactly what Oliphint has said elsewhere: “It is idolatry, therefore, that lies at the root of our sin, and thus at the root of our irrationality. . . Our idolatry stems not from ignorance . . . It results always from a perversion of the truth, a twisting of reality.” (Oliphint, The Irrationality of Unbelief).
(3) On page 115, Oliphint is again criticized for taking sola scriptura too far in his epistemology. However, Fesko and Oliphint seem to be in agreement in their approach on this point. Oliphint has said, regarding the fundamentals of Christian epistemology, that "[w]e affirm, then, a revelational epistemology, in which the basic truths of our theory of knowledge, derived as they are from the nature of the world, are taken initially from the teaching of God's special revelation and from the reality of God's general revelation." (Reasons for Faith, 341). Fesko's approach (presented on 195 - 214) appears to be largely the same. Both Fesko and Oliphint affirm the classic Reformed epistemological framework of principium essendi and principium congnoscendi.
This make me suspicious of Fesko's reading of others, such as Dooyeweerd, who I have not read myself.
The Worldview chapter is by far the weakest in the book simply because the worldview theory offered there is a sad caricature which no one would defend. Who is arguing that Scripture tells us how to do calculus? Claiming that we need a comprehensive worldview which grounds our understanding of reality, does not mean that worldview theory claims to offer “exhaustive” detail on all of reality.
A lot of space could have been saved if the book would have recognized the common ground and addressed the difference in emphasis and the clear disagreements between Van Til and classical Reformed apologists. The last chapter makes clear that the space between the two views is much more narrow than this book alleges. Having said this, Reforming Apologetics is still a timely and necessary book in so far as it bolsters the validity of common notions and natural knowledge (which Van Tilians largely agree with, but perhaps should emphasize more) and also in so far as it provides a superb historical view of the landscape.
July 11, 2022
Although slightly spoiled by aspects of the author's R2K theology, this is a very helpful assessment and critique of Van Til and Dooyeweerd's epistemology, as well as a positive presentation of the classic approach of Reformed Orthodoxy.
The author begins by establishing the historic catholic and Reformed understanding of the Light of Nature and Common Notions. He does this initially from the WCF and the writings of Post-Reformation Orthodox Divines before spending some time specifically looking at Calvin's harmony with those that followed. Some of the treatment of Calvin's thinking is a further refutation of the old (and tired) Calvin Vs the Calvinists thesis. In particular, the author agrees with all the recent scholarship showing how Scholasticism was not a set of doctrines but a vital method for theological study.
Next Aquinas is assessed, and specifically Van Til's critique of him. Most interesting here is the claim that Van Til seems to have little acquaintance with Aquinas first hand, as evidenced in an absence of primary source quotations (something corroborated by Frame). The chapter clears Aquinas of the misrepresentations leveled at him (though not of some genuine errors in the Ox), and even shows considerable agreements between Aquinas and Van Til in their writings. Aquinas is with Augustine and Anslem in claiming both that Faith Seeks Understanding, and that we Think God's Thoughts After Him.
The following chapter does a great job showing the intellectual history of the Historic Worldview Theory. And while the author may be too critical in places, surely he is right to wonder how Natural Law fits into some of the attempts to have a truly comprehensive world and life view.
The author now turns to the roots of Van Til's own philosophy and terminology. It was surprising to see how much of Van Til's terminology is taken over from German and British idealism. Despite infusing the terms with new meanings, there is considerable similarities between Van Til's Transcendental Argument for God and Kant's transcendental philosophy. Does Van Til make sense outside the era of idealism? Is he doing anything different, in essence, than Aquinas did with Aristotle? Are Kantian categories better suited as a handmaiden to theology than Aristotelian ones?
Dooyeweerd's idiosyncratic ideas are next in view, with Harnack's Hellenization Thesis. I'll admit that I find Dooyeweerd just too odd to think about much, despite his influence. The Hellenization Thesis of Harnack, though, is very detrimental to the Reformed faith and is somewhat seductive in it's simplistic claim. The author did a good job explaining and critiquing both.
The last chapter attempts to lay down some ideas on how we should engage in apologetics, and form our epistemological foundations.
I liked it a lot. I plan to follow up with an article on the same topic by a non-R2K theologian (I have chosen Keith Mathison).
The author begins by establishing the historic catholic and Reformed understanding of the Light of Nature and Common Notions. He does this initially from the WCF and the writings of Post-Reformation Orthodox Divines before spending some time specifically looking at Calvin's harmony with those that followed. Some of the treatment of Calvin's thinking is a further refutation of the old (and tired) Calvin Vs the Calvinists thesis. In particular, the author agrees with all the recent scholarship showing how Scholasticism was not a set of doctrines but a vital method for theological study.
Next Aquinas is assessed, and specifically Van Til's critique of him. Most interesting here is the claim that Van Til seems to have little acquaintance with Aquinas first hand, as evidenced in an absence of primary source quotations (something corroborated by Frame). The chapter clears Aquinas of the misrepresentations leveled at him (though not of some genuine errors in the Ox), and even shows considerable agreements between Aquinas and Van Til in their writings. Aquinas is with Augustine and Anslem in claiming both that Faith Seeks Understanding, and that we Think God's Thoughts After Him.
The following chapter does a great job showing the intellectual history of the Historic Worldview Theory. And while the author may be too critical in places, surely he is right to wonder how Natural Law fits into some of the attempts to have a truly comprehensive world and life view.
The author now turns to the roots of Van Til's own philosophy and terminology. It was surprising to see how much of Van Til's terminology is taken over from German and British idealism. Despite infusing the terms with new meanings, there is considerable similarities between Van Til's Transcendental Argument for God and Kant's transcendental philosophy. Does Van Til make sense outside the era of idealism? Is he doing anything different, in essence, than Aquinas did with Aristotle? Are Kantian categories better suited as a handmaiden to theology than Aristotelian ones?
Dooyeweerd's idiosyncratic ideas are next in view, with Harnack's Hellenization Thesis. I'll admit that I find Dooyeweerd just too odd to think about much, despite his influence. The Hellenization Thesis of Harnack, though, is very detrimental to the Reformed faith and is somewhat seductive in it's simplistic claim. The author did a good job explaining and critiquing both.
The last chapter attempts to lay down some ideas on how we should engage in apologetics, and form our epistemological foundations.
I liked it a lot. I plan to follow up with an article on the same topic by a non-R2K theologian (I have chosen Keith Mathison).
April 26, 2019
Any time you present an argument having to do with theology/philosophy, I think you can expect the audience to have some bias, as well as the author. I was impressed with the restraint shown here when making judgments about what previous thoughts and ideas have been given in the past about this subject.
The author has clearly done a lot of research and has a broad understanding of the topics in this book, however, I would have liked to have seen some of the chapters and ideas expanded upon more since I thought the author fully capable of doing so. There were some parts of the book that were very detailed and interesting and others that left me wanting more and a bit disappointed that there was not more depth.
If you are beginning your research and want a book that is fully approachable, this would be an excellent choice. As I was looking at this book from a scholarly perspective and not a theological one, I can't really say how other people in a general audience would feel about it, but I personally thought it was interesting and valuable.
This review is based on a complimentary copy from the publisher, provided through Netgalley. All opinions are my own.
The author has clearly done a lot of research and has a broad understanding of the topics in this book, however, I would have liked to have seen some of the chapters and ideas expanded upon more since I thought the author fully capable of doing so. There were some parts of the book that were very detailed and interesting and others that left me wanting more and a bit disappointed that there was not more depth.
If you are beginning your research and want a book that is fully approachable, this would be an excellent choice. As I was looking at this book from a scholarly perspective and not a theological one, I can't really say how other people in a general audience would feel about it, but I personally thought it was interesting and valuable.
This review is based on a complimentary copy from the publisher, provided through Netgalley. All opinions are my own.
June 1, 2019
A very clear assessment of false claims regarding the usage of the “book of nature” in apologetics. Definitely Reformed insider-baseball, but interesting nonetheless. The major benefit of this book is the way in which Fesko distills arguments about classical Reformed sources in a way that’s understandable outside of mostly specialist literature.
September 30, 2023
Helpful, clear writing by a gracious author. Many good points and correctives.
July 9, 2020
An excellent book for the retrieval of the historic Reformed way of defending the faith! Fesko presents an excellent argument for adherence to the traditional way argued for by Junius, Anthony Burgess, Thomas Goodwin, and other Reformed theologians; many in line with the scholastic titan Thomas Aquinas. Rather than rejecting Aquinas for Calvin, Fesko shows how the two complement one another; as well as their differences. Especially potent are the chapters on Aquinas (how he is often maligned, misquoted, and misattributed), the chapter on historic worldview theory, and the section on dualisms; where he aims at the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd. There are times where he doesn't engage enough with primary source material or offers too simplistic a rebuttal yes, but the overall thesis and goal is well presented. I will also add, you'll either enjoy this book or hate it; personally, I enjoyed it! If you are firmly entrenched in Van Tillian or Dooyeweerdian systems of thought, then you may take more issue with it. But, for an argument for the traditional Reformed method of arguing for the faith, this book is one of the best in recent years!
January 28, 2021
As it stands right now, I have very little skin in this game. I've read a book by van Til, but I don't know enough to evaluate every claim made here. I can say, however, that the book was very well laid-out and easy to follow. Dr. Fesko gives a clear thesis statement and an outline of his argument in the introductions to every chapter. The book reads much like his lectures, and that's something to appreciate.
Without having read many of the primary sources, it appeared to me as though Fesko did aim to be charitable in his treatment of van Til (and Dooyeweerd). He emphasized common ground (lulz) between himself and his interlocutors, and never vilified his opponents. It seemed to me that the position he advocates is a fair middle-option between Bahnesnite militant presuppositionalism (which I must admit to being irritated by) and trenchant classicalism (which can also be fairly tiring).
I'm still reserving full judgment until I find the time to read more van Til.
Without having read many of the primary sources, it appeared to me as though Fesko did aim to be charitable in his treatment of van Til (and Dooyeweerd). He emphasized common ground (lulz) between himself and his interlocutors, and never vilified his opponents. It seemed to me that the position he advocates is a fair middle-option between Bahnesnite militant presuppositionalism (which I must admit to being irritated by) and trenchant classicalism (which can also be fairly tiring).
I'm still reserving full judgment until I find the time to read more van Til.
Read
March 6, 2025Fesko definitely scored a 36 on the ACT reading section.
June 14, 2021
Though Van Til criticized Bavinck, Calvin and Aquinas of employing pagan Greek philosophy into their apologetics, Fesko flips the script, as it were, to show that Van Til is the one who actually was a product of pagan thought flowing from the streams of
the Enlightenment and German Idealism. Where classical apologetics use of Greek philosophy was limited and acted as an aid, ex. Saint Paul at Mars Hill, Van Til has adopted the Historic Worldview Theory and baptized it with his Christian faith.
Throughout Fesko is very respectful and irenic. He doesn't want to portray Van Til as a villain, rather Fesko shows that Van Til was misguided. Fesko is even willing to say that we shouldn't throw away the whole of Van Til's method; attacking the presuppositions at the core of a belief can be very effective. But there are serious issues to the method of Van Til which include his denial of common notions and a practical rejection of common grace. This book, without a doubt, reveals the dangers and shortcomings of Van Tillian apologetics. As a former Van Tillian I was introduced to it's errors about a year ago and have implemented classical methods in defending the faith with family and friends. After reading Fesko's book I'm more confident in my Reformed catholicity with the classical method and ultimately in the scriptures. This book happens to be the final nail in the coffin for my Van Tillian ways.
the Enlightenment and German Idealism. Where classical apologetics use of Greek philosophy was limited and acted as an aid, ex. Saint Paul at Mars Hill, Van Til has adopted the Historic Worldview Theory and baptized it with his Christian faith.
Throughout Fesko is very respectful and irenic. He doesn't want to portray Van Til as a villain, rather Fesko shows that Van Til was misguided. Fesko is even willing to say that we shouldn't throw away the whole of Van Til's method; attacking the presuppositions at the core of a belief can be very effective. But there are serious issues to the method of Van Til which include his denial of common notions and a practical rejection of common grace. This book, without a doubt, reveals the dangers and shortcomings of Van Tillian apologetics. As a former Van Tillian I was introduced to it's errors about a year ago and have implemented classical methods in defending the faith with family and friends. After reading Fesko's book I'm more confident in my Reformed catholicity with the classical method and ultimately in the scriptures. This book happens to be the final nail in the coffin for my Van Tillian ways.
November 9, 2021
2.5 stars (rounded up bc I’m feeling nice). I read three chapters of this book for a research paper, and decided to finish it, since I was 40% of the way there. I was principally interested with Fesko’s interactions with Van Til (sorry Dooyeweerd), and so my rating reflects my thoughts on Fesko’s interaction with Van Til. I ultimately think he failed in his push for an anti-thesis (pun intended) between Van Til and the Reformed tradition. Fesko writing that Van Til rejects common notions is more of an assertion than argument. Fesko also obfuscates when he regularly uses natural revelation, natural theology, and natural law (read: light of nature, common notions) interchangeably, with seemingly no distinctions. His failure to engage with CVT’s Nature and Scripture is also quite disappointing. I could say more, including a sharp disagreement re: his chapter on Worldview, but ultimately I think he unsuccessfully tries to paint CVT as someone reinventing the wheel in the reformed world. Van Til does not reject natural theology or common notions. Does he misrepresent Aquinas and some of the Protestant Scholastics? Indeed, but this does not take away from his apologetic method which is building on the theology of Calvin, and the exegesis of Geerhardus Vos. Could he have been a clearer writer? Definitely, but this does not push Van Til outside of historic, Reformed bounds.
April 8, 2021
Fesko's book is a real gift to those concerned with reclaiming a natural law/natural theology focus within the theological, apologetic, and philosophical dialogue in the church. Fesko does a great job demonstrating how concepts like "common notions" were commonplace among historic Reformed thinkers, including John Calvin, by citing primary sources and interacting with them substantially. He also demonstrates how many within the modern Reformed movement who subscribe to a Van Tillian apologetic wrongly interpret thinkers like Calvin and Aquinas on this issue.
Of special interest to me was how Reformed thinkers exegeted passages like Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:14–15. Fesko provides important primary source material demonstrating how such thinkers as Calvin, Anthony Burgess, The Westminster divines, and others believed that God revealed himself in "the light of nature" and as a result, there were points of common ground available between believer and non-believer. Fesko is careful here to assert that such common ground by no means implies that non-believers can come to saving faith apart from the Spirit's work (Romans 8:7–8). He's also careful to note that the non-believer doesn't come to faith purely on the basis of rational argumentation, but based upon the Spirit's work in their hearts.
Another special interest to me was the interaction Fesko provides on the claims of Aquinas and the criticisms leveled at him by Van Til. At several points, Fesko provides original source material from Aquinas, compares such material with Van Til's criticisms, and then provides his own observations and commentary. In general, Fesko demonstrates how Van Til was reacting to Enlightenment thinkers like Kant who summarized Aquinas and then refuted their own interpretation of Aquinas. Fesko points out how Van Til was guilty of this as well, especially in light of the seldom appearance of any primary source interaction with Aquinas himself.
Unfortunately, the implications of Fesko's criticism is that Van Til engaged in an extended straw man of Aquinas and many others have followed suit. Fesko also shows—from the writings and arguments of Aquinas—how a Thomist understanding of natural theology fits within the "faith seeking understanding" motto of Augustine and Anselm, something that Thomas himself believed he was operating within and sought to embody in his own work.
One major point of criticism is that Fesko doesn't provide much in the way of specific statements from Aquinas that Van Til and others critiqued. As mentioned above, Fesko mentions how Van Til primarily criticized Aquinas based upon secondary sources, so this helps Fesko's case. that this is because Van Til failed to engage in the primary sources of Aquinas. Even still, Fesko fails to reference the essay by Van Til entitled "Nature and Scripture" in which Van Til discusses the views of Aquinas, Pre-Kantian philosophers, and more (https://thirdmill.org/magazine/hof/ST...)
This leaves Fesko's thesis open to significant critique. It could be easy to accuse Fesko of cherry-picking sources in order to advance his particular criticism—the same thing Fesko accuses Van Til of doing. If nothing else, the lack of interaction around this significant essay is an important omission. In his review of the book, James Anderson states that Van Til articulates in this essay a "very robust" doctrine of natural revelation within certain contexts (https://www.proginosko.com/2019/06/re...).
There are many more positive marks I could list for this book. Without a doubt, Fesko has done his homework, providing a degree of depth and analysis to this subject that is helpful and needed. In summary, I found Fesko's book to be incredibly informative, engaging, and accessible. Fesko interacts with the key arguments, thinkers, and writings in order to provide a positive case for the existence and utility of common grace, natural law, and common notions within the Reformed tradition.
Of special interest to me was how Reformed thinkers exegeted passages like Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:14–15. Fesko provides important primary source material demonstrating how such thinkers as Calvin, Anthony Burgess, The Westminster divines, and others believed that God revealed himself in "the light of nature" and as a result, there were points of common ground available between believer and non-believer. Fesko is careful here to assert that such common ground by no means implies that non-believers can come to saving faith apart from the Spirit's work (Romans 8:7–8). He's also careful to note that the non-believer doesn't come to faith purely on the basis of rational argumentation, but based upon the Spirit's work in their hearts.
Another special interest to me was the interaction Fesko provides on the claims of Aquinas and the criticisms leveled at him by Van Til. At several points, Fesko provides original source material from Aquinas, compares such material with Van Til's criticisms, and then provides his own observations and commentary. In general, Fesko demonstrates how Van Til was reacting to Enlightenment thinkers like Kant who summarized Aquinas and then refuted their own interpretation of Aquinas. Fesko points out how Van Til was guilty of this as well, especially in light of the seldom appearance of any primary source interaction with Aquinas himself.
Unfortunately, the implications of Fesko's criticism is that Van Til engaged in an extended straw man of Aquinas and many others have followed suit. Fesko also shows—from the writings and arguments of Aquinas—how a Thomist understanding of natural theology fits within the "faith seeking understanding" motto of Augustine and Anselm, something that Thomas himself believed he was operating within and sought to embody in his own work.
One major point of criticism is that Fesko doesn't provide much in the way of specific statements from Aquinas that Van Til and others critiqued. As mentioned above, Fesko mentions how Van Til primarily criticized Aquinas based upon secondary sources, so this helps Fesko's case. that this is because Van Til failed to engage in the primary sources of Aquinas. Even still, Fesko fails to reference the essay by Van Til entitled "Nature and Scripture" in which Van Til discusses the views of Aquinas, Pre-Kantian philosophers, and more (https://thirdmill.org/magazine/hof/ST...)
This leaves Fesko's thesis open to significant critique. It could be easy to accuse Fesko of cherry-picking sources in order to advance his particular criticism—the same thing Fesko accuses Van Til of doing. If nothing else, the lack of interaction around this significant essay is an important omission. In his review of the book, James Anderson states that Van Til articulates in this essay a "very robust" doctrine of natural revelation within certain contexts (https://www.proginosko.com/2019/06/re...).
There are many more positive marks I could list for this book. Without a doubt, Fesko has done his homework, providing a degree of depth and analysis to this subject that is helpful and needed. In summary, I found Fesko's book to be incredibly informative, engaging, and accessible. Fesko interacts with the key arguments, thinkers, and writings in order to provide a positive case for the existence and utility of common grace, natural law, and common notions within the Reformed tradition.
September 5, 2019
As Nathan White said - not perfect, but timely. Irenic in tone but arguing the case well with emphasis on going to the sources. I appreciate how Fesko analysed well known hymn 'I serve a risen Saviour', when I have preached a sermon on resurrection earlier on this year I made a similar comment, great minds think alike!
October 23, 2021
This book is a tremendous resource showing the differences between presuppositional and classical apologetics. Though not a light read, the effort will be well rewarded; the author assumes the reader possesses knowledge that is critical to the book, so it is recommended that if one finds it hard to follow, one should pause and research the area of confusion.
All in all, very edifying, eye-opening, and practical
All in all, very edifying, eye-opening, and practical
July 22, 2021
Spectacular
December 28, 2025
An excellent overview of apologetics providing an overview of the neglected book of nature "light of nature" in apologetics and a robust critique of Van Til and presuppositional apologetics. Fesko makes a compelling case that Van Til, Bahnsen, and Dooyeward were dependent on German enlightenment principles from Kant and others specifically with their understanding of worldview theory and the coherence theory of truth that every truth must be understood in a coherent system not as isolated facts. This view misunderstands the objective reality revealed in natural revelation (realism) and argues that the system impressed on the mind is the true reality (idealism) and denies that man has an ability to reason and arrive at any truth apart from scripture. If presuppositionalism were true, then the unbeliever could not even learn that 2+2 = 4 because they must use Scripture as the lenses to learn and interpret everything (the same view embraced by modern theonomists). Fesko demonstrates that the method of Van Til and his followers undermines a proper historical and confessional theological method by anachronistically rejecting older theological categories as "Thomistic" or "Aristotelian", but Van Til (add many of his modern followers) never read Aquinas or primary sources in their critique of medieval theology and scholasticism.
This is a brief summary of Fesko's argument on the German enlightenment influence on the method of Van Til and Dooyeward that he carefully argues over several chapters with many primary sources,
"The chief problem with Dooyeweerd’s system is that, despite all his claims of biblical purity, his Reformational philosophy bears all the marks of Kantian transcendental thought. As with transcendental arguments, one adopts a starting point and then deduces the rest of one’s system from that starting point. The idea of a central dogma, which finds its origin in the thought of both Kant and Christian Wolff (1679–1754), colors a lot of nineteenth-and twentieth-century philosophy and theology. Kuyper’s central dogma is the sovereignty of God; Van Til’s central dogma is the ontological Trinity (or Scripture); and Dooyeweerd’s central dogma is his biblical ground motive. To characterize a proper starting point for knowledge and philosophy, Dooyeweerd invoked the Archimedean principle, “Give me a place to stand [pou stō], and I will move the world.” Dooyeweerd and other theologians and philosophers of the period looked for the one principle from which to deduce an entire system of thought, a procedure that bears the marks of German idealism" (pg. 182).
Fesko begins by looking at the expression "light of nature" in the WCF and turns to primary 17th century theologians to show how they favored a balanced view of natural theology and affirmed the proper use of the two books of revelation: nature and special revelation, contrary to the "revelational epistemology" of Van Til and modern presuppositionalists.
Fesko demonstrates that while Van Til did provide nuance to some of his terms there are clear parallels to his transcendental argument and the arguments used by Emmanuel Kant and later British idealist philosophers, so Van Til was not offering any novel Copernican revolution with his use of TAG. Fesko shows that Dooyeward, using the same principles as Van Til, argued that WCF teaches a dualistic, thomistic anthropology, and demonstrates how Van Til, Bahnsen, and Dooyeeward misunderstood Thomas Aquinas and scholasticism by frequently relying on secondary sources. Their acceptance of German enlightenment principles undermines the confessional basis of many doctrines and is not limited to apologetics. Van Til's method is fundamentally based on a strawman of medieval and scholastic theology as "thomistic" and synthetic use of Greek philosophy compromised by their dependence on Aristotle. This critique undercuts the very theological method of the confessions and catechisms of the reformation and post-reformation period, which made proper theological distinctions and avoided false and simplistic dichotomies of Van Til and modern idealist presuppositional theologians (Dooyeward, Bahnsen, Scott Oliphint, etc).
Fesko briefly mentions how this same theological method is seen in the modern theonomist movement's proposal to "conquer the culture/society", which misinterprets the biblical records of apologetics recorded in Acts and assumes a German enlightenment concept of worldview. This same flaw is present in the federal vision movement and their twisting and distortion of the law and gospel hermeneutic to undercut the proclamation of the gospel by conflating law and gospel and creating a neonomian gospel, just as Richard Baxter did previously in church history.
"In the church’s efforts to defend the faith, Christians must always take a humble stance toward the world. Like the sons of Zebedee, whom Jesus nicknamed “the Sons of Thunder,” we can be all too eager to call down fire on unbelievers (Mark 3:17; Luke 9:54). Add in the misguided claim that the Bible provides a comprehensive view of life and the world that encompasses all knowledge, and this can easily turn into Christian imperialism. Christians today often speak less about saving the lost than about conquering the world. Especially in the secularized West, the problem with such rhetoric is that it does not align with the more modest claims of the Bible. The church is a pilgrim people: this world is not our home. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were princes among the people of God and were heirs of the covenant promises, yet they dwelled in tents. As the book of Hebrews tells us, “By faith [Abraham] went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb. 11:9–10). Correlatively, too many contemporary Reformed Christians have unwittingly imbibed Enlightenment ideas, such as the concept of a central dogma, a principle from which one constructs an entire system of thought, the Archimedean fulcrum from which one moves the world, the pou stō. As noted in earlier chapters, Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Van Til, and others have taken the idea of the central dogma and infused it with Christian content: the sovereignty of God, creation-fall-redemption, the self-attesting Christ of Scripture, or Scripture. They then claim that from this one starting point Christians can develop a comprehensive view of life and the world. Such thought patterns align well with the notion of a central dogma but fall significantly short when we hold the claims up to the scrutiny of Scripture, especially what we find in the Wisdom literature. The Scriptures undoubtedly present truth-claims that intersect with a host of general-knowledge claims. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it does teach that God immediately created Adam. Some scientists are entertaining the idea that the universe did not begin with the big bang but has always existed, that the universe is in some sense eternal. The Bible, however, claims that God created the universe out of nothing (Heb. 11:3). So the Bible does provide Christians with important facts about the world, but as important as these facts are, the Bible does not provide comprehensive knowledge" (pg. 215-16).
My only criticism is that the last chapter only briefly considers how to properly use the book of nature/natural theology, and I would have liked further discussion on using the classical theistic arguments/proofs for apologetics.
This is a brief summary of Fesko's argument on the German enlightenment influence on the method of Van Til and Dooyeward that he carefully argues over several chapters with many primary sources,
"The chief problem with Dooyeweerd’s system is that, despite all his claims of biblical purity, his Reformational philosophy bears all the marks of Kantian transcendental thought. As with transcendental arguments, one adopts a starting point and then deduces the rest of one’s system from that starting point. The idea of a central dogma, which finds its origin in the thought of both Kant and Christian Wolff (1679–1754), colors a lot of nineteenth-and twentieth-century philosophy and theology. Kuyper’s central dogma is the sovereignty of God; Van Til’s central dogma is the ontological Trinity (or Scripture); and Dooyeweerd’s central dogma is his biblical ground motive. To characterize a proper starting point for knowledge and philosophy, Dooyeweerd invoked the Archimedean principle, “Give me a place to stand [pou stō], and I will move the world.” Dooyeweerd and other theologians and philosophers of the period looked for the one principle from which to deduce an entire system of thought, a procedure that bears the marks of German idealism" (pg. 182).
Fesko begins by looking at the expression "light of nature" in the WCF and turns to primary 17th century theologians to show how they favored a balanced view of natural theology and affirmed the proper use of the two books of revelation: nature and special revelation, contrary to the "revelational epistemology" of Van Til and modern presuppositionalists.
Fesko demonstrates that while Van Til did provide nuance to some of his terms there are clear parallels to his transcendental argument and the arguments used by Emmanuel Kant and later British idealist philosophers, so Van Til was not offering any novel Copernican revolution with his use of TAG. Fesko shows that Dooyeward, using the same principles as Van Til, argued that WCF teaches a dualistic, thomistic anthropology, and demonstrates how Van Til, Bahnsen, and Dooyeeward misunderstood Thomas Aquinas and scholasticism by frequently relying on secondary sources. Their acceptance of German enlightenment principles undermines the confessional basis of many doctrines and is not limited to apologetics. Van Til's method is fundamentally based on a strawman of medieval and scholastic theology as "thomistic" and synthetic use of Greek philosophy compromised by their dependence on Aristotle. This critique undercuts the very theological method of the confessions and catechisms of the reformation and post-reformation period, which made proper theological distinctions and avoided false and simplistic dichotomies of Van Til and modern idealist presuppositional theologians (Dooyeward, Bahnsen, Scott Oliphint, etc).
Fesko briefly mentions how this same theological method is seen in the modern theonomist movement's proposal to "conquer the culture/society", which misinterprets the biblical records of apologetics recorded in Acts and assumes a German enlightenment concept of worldview. This same flaw is present in the federal vision movement and their twisting and distortion of the law and gospel hermeneutic to undercut the proclamation of the gospel by conflating law and gospel and creating a neonomian gospel, just as Richard Baxter did previously in church history.
"In the church’s efforts to defend the faith, Christians must always take a humble stance toward the world. Like the sons of Zebedee, whom Jesus nicknamed “the Sons of Thunder,” we can be all too eager to call down fire on unbelievers (Mark 3:17; Luke 9:54). Add in the misguided claim that the Bible provides a comprehensive view of life and the world that encompasses all knowledge, and this can easily turn into Christian imperialism. Christians today often speak less about saving the lost than about conquering the world. Especially in the secularized West, the problem with such rhetoric is that it does not align with the more modest claims of the Bible. The church is a pilgrim people: this world is not our home. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were princes among the people of God and were heirs of the covenant promises, yet they dwelled in tents. As the book of Hebrews tells us, “By faith [Abraham] went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb. 11:9–10). Correlatively, too many contemporary Reformed Christians have unwittingly imbibed Enlightenment ideas, such as the concept of a central dogma, a principle from which one constructs an entire system of thought, the Archimedean fulcrum from which one moves the world, the pou stō. As noted in earlier chapters, Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Van Til, and others have taken the idea of the central dogma and infused it with Christian content: the sovereignty of God, creation-fall-redemption, the self-attesting Christ of Scripture, or Scripture. They then claim that from this one starting point Christians can develop a comprehensive view of life and the world. Such thought patterns align well with the notion of a central dogma but fall significantly short when we hold the claims up to the scrutiny of Scripture, especially what we find in the Wisdom literature. The Scriptures undoubtedly present truth-claims that intersect with a host of general-knowledge claims. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it does teach that God immediately created Adam. Some scientists are entertaining the idea that the universe did not begin with the big bang but has always existed, that the universe is in some sense eternal. The Bible, however, claims that God created the universe out of nothing (Heb. 11:3). So the Bible does provide Christians with important facts about the world, but as important as these facts are, the Bible does not provide comprehensive knowledge" (pg. 215-16).
My only criticism is that the last chapter only briefly considers how to properly use the book of nature/natural theology, and I would have liked further discussion on using the classical theistic arguments/proofs for apologetics.
February 3, 2023
The straw that broke my presuppositional camel’s back.
February 2, 2020
When I picked up this book, I was expecting it to be an apologetic work, not a work about apologetics as a discipline. I had just finished reading “More Than A Carpenter” by Josh McDowell, and thought this book would help me brush up on some more apologetics knowledge as well.
I have to admit, reading this book was somewhat of a drudgery AT FIRST. I was much more interested near the end, and I was especially intrigued by and appreciative of statements made in the final chapter, which I found to be somewhat of a reward for sticking it out.
Content-wise, I have no complaints. The theology and research behind this work appears solid, and I am impressed by the amount of citations in this book. Fesko cites his sources, which is great! I’ve seen books and heard sermons where sources aren’t cited or - worse still - the sources are dubious, or it’s dubious whether or not the source in question is really the correct source to cite, so this is refreshing.
However, I would not recommend this book to the average layperson. Again, it has nothing to do with content, but with the form. Especially at the beginning, the tone of this book is INCREDIBLY heady. I wouldn’t consider myself an academic, but I am quite interested in Reformed theology and apologetics, being Reformed myself, and I was able to track with Fesko in these pages. For academics, theologians, pastors, and random laypeople who nerd out about theology and apologetics, this book is definitely for you. However, I do not recommend it to the average layperson in the church who is just trying to live in obedience to the Bible and not concern themselves with the world of theological academia, and I DEFINITELY don’t recommend it to non-Christian friends.
In spite of my criticism about the form of this work, I do feel the final chapter was worth getting through the rest of the book, and this is really what’s caused me to give 4 stars rather than 3. In pp. 203-204, Fesko says something that I wish would be in the preface of all works related to apologetics. He says, “No amount of rational argumentation, evidence, or cajoling will persuade sinful covenant breakers to turn to God in repentance. Only a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit can remove the detrimental noetic effects of sin and enable fallen people to love God and submit to his authoritative word in Scripture. Apologetics... does not convert fallen sinners (203).” In other words, he acknowledges the limitations of the discipline of apologetics - what it can’t do. This is something that many Christians need to hear, and something I learned the hard way as I have attempted to share the Good News in the past, believing that hardness of heart was due to ignorance, not ignorance to hardness of heart (Eph. 4:18).
Fesko does one better than that, though. As a Christian with a more-than-merely-mild interest in the intellectual aspect(s) of my faith, I have often wondered, upon finding out what apologetics can’t do, what exactly it COULD do. In other words, what is the place of apologetics in evangelism? In the church? I couldn’t deny the importance of being able to provide a reason for the hope within me (1 Pet. 3:15), yet I couldn’t articulate the reason behind needing to be able to provide a reason. Thankfully, Fesko provides three reasons. He explains that the purpose of apologetics in our ministry is “(1) to refute intellectual objections to the Christian faith, (2) to clarify our understanding of the truth, and (3) to encourage and edify believers in their faith (204).” In other words, apologetics is for destroying arguments (2 Cor. 10:5), explaining the truth, and building up the body of Christ. I genuinely thank God that this chapter was written. Coming away from this book, I am glad that I struggled through it until the end. Not only do I feel edified in my faith due to the confirmation of a lesson God had taught me long ago WRITTEN ON PAPER, but also because I can genuinely say that I learned something.
All in all, this is a good read for those who are more inclined to academia or professional careers in theology or pastoral ministry, and there is an interesting lesson to learn in the final chapter for those who are more like me. If you do pick up this book and decide to read it, brace yourself for a heady discussion fit for the ivory tower, but bear in mind also that this is not merely theoretical. There are practical lessons to be gleaned from this book, especially as regards the use of common notions in apologetics, so don’t fall asleep! Fight through the academic, theological buzz words! Look them up online, if you must. There’s a very good message hidden under the jargon that I believe all Christians - especially Reformed Christians - need to hear.
I have to admit, reading this book was somewhat of a drudgery AT FIRST. I was much more interested near the end, and I was especially intrigued by and appreciative of statements made in the final chapter, which I found to be somewhat of a reward for sticking it out.
Content-wise, I have no complaints. The theology and research behind this work appears solid, and I am impressed by the amount of citations in this book. Fesko cites his sources, which is great! I’ve seen books and heard sermons where sources aren’t cited or - worse still - the sources are dubious, or it’s dubious whether or not the source in question is really the correct source to cite, so this is refreshing.
However, I would not recommend this book to the average layperson. Again, it has nothing to do with content, but with the form. Especially at the beginning, the tone of this book is INCREDIBLY heady. I wouldn’t consider myself an academic, but I am quite interested in Reformed theology and apologetics, being Reformed myself, and I was able to track with Fesko in these pages. For academics, theologians, pastors, and random laypeople who nerd out about theology and apologetics, this book is definitely for you. However, I do not recommend it to the average layperson in the church who is just trying to live in obedience to the Bible and not concern themselves with the world of theological academia, and I DEFINITELY don’t recommend it to non-Christian friends.
In spite of my criticism about the form of this work, I do feel the final chapter was worth getting through the rest of the book, and this is really what’s caused me to give 4 stars rather than 3. In pp. 203-204, Fesko says something that I wish would be in the preface of all works related to apologetics. He says, “No amount of rational argumentation, evidence, or cajoling will persuade sinful covenant breakers to turn to God in repentance. Only a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit can remove the detrimental noetic effects of sin and enable fallen people to love God and submit to his authoritative word in Scripture. Apologetics... does not convert fallen sinners (203).” In other words, he acknowledges the limitations of the discipline of apologetics - what it can’t do. This is something that many Christians need to hear, and something I learned the hard way as I have attempted to share the Good News in the past, believing that hardness of heart was due to ignorance, not ignorance to hardness of heart (Eph. 4:18).
Fesko does one better than that, though. As a Christian with a more-than-merely-mild interest in the intellectual aspect(s) of my faith, I have often wondered, upon finding out what apologetics can’t do, what exactly it COULD do. In other words, what is the place of apologetics in evangelism? In the church? I couldn’t deny the importance of being able to provide a reason for the hope within me (1 Pet. 3:15), yet I couldn’t articulate the reason behind needing to be able to provide a reason. Thankfully, Fesko provides three reasons. He explains that the purpose of apologetics in our ministry is “(1) to refute intellectual objections to the Christian faith, (2) to clarify our understanding of the truth, and (3) to encourage and edify believers in their faith (204).” In other words, apologetics is for destroying arguments (2 Cor. 10:5), explaining the truth, and building up the body of Christ. I genuinely thank God that this chapter was written. Coming away from this book, I am glad that I struggled through it until the end. Not only do I feel edified in my faith due to the confirmation of a lesson God had taught me long ago WRITTEN ON PAPER, but also because I can genuinely say that I learned something.
All in all, this is a good read for those who are more inclined to academia or professional careers in theology or pastoral ministry, and there is an interesting lesson to learn in the final chapter for those who are more like me. If you do pick up this book and decide to read it, brace yourself for a heady discussion fit for the ivory tower, but bear in mind also that this is not merely theoretical. There are practical lessons to be gleaned from this book, especially as regards the use of common notions in apologetics, so don’t fall asleep! Fight through the academic, theological buzz words! Look them up online, if you must. There’s a very good message hidden under the jargon that I believe all Christians - especially Reformed Christians - need to hear.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 25, 2020
This was a great book. Scholarly and well-referenced.
As a Classicalist, I really appreciated the clarification on Thomas Aquinas and Calvin apropos common notions and general revelation, as this point is usually misrepresented by presuppositionalists. Additionally, the historical analysis of the great support of common notions by the Reformed lineage.
I also overly enjoyed the chapters exploring worldviews and the transcendental arguments, and how Fesko showed that contrary to what Van Til tried to pursue and claim, at the end-of-day, he was very much externally influenced by Kantian philosophy––therefore, his apologetic method not being "pure" from non-Christian influence.
I also appreciated the following statements from Fesko, as they represent truly what Reformed Classicalists believe––contrary to what presuppositionalists try to assert about Classical Apologetics:
“No amount of rational argumentation, evidence, or cajoling will persuade sinful covenant breakers to turn to God in repentance. Only a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit can remove the detrimental noetic effects of sin and enable fallen people to love God and submit to his authoritative word in Scripture. Apologetics [...] does not convert fallen sinners.” (203)
And the purpose of apologetics:
“(1) to refute intellectual objections to the Christian faith, (2) to clarify our understanding of the truth, and (3) to encourage and edify believers in their faith.” (204)
As a Classicalist, I really appreciated the clarification on Thomas Aquinas and Calvin apropos common notions and general revelation, as this point is usually misrepresented by presuppositionalists. Additionally, the historical analysis of the great support of common notions by the Reformed lineage.
I also overly enjoyed the chapters exploring worldviews and the transcendental arguments, and how Fesko showed that contrary to what Van Til tried to pursue and claim, at the end-of-day, he was very much externally influenced by Kantian philosophy––therefore, his apologetic method not being "pure" from non-Christian influence.
I also appreciated the following statements from Fesko, as they represent truly what Reformed Classicalists believe––contrary to what presuppositionalists try to assert about Classical Apologetics:
“No amount of rational argumentation, evidence, or cajoling will persuade sinful covenant breakers to turn to God in repentance. Only a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit can remove the detrimental noetic effects of sin and enable fallen people to love God and submit to his authoritative word in Scripture. Apologetics [...] does not convert fallen sinners.” (203)
And the purpose of apologetics:
“(1) to refute intellectual objections to the Christian faith, (2) to clarify our understanding of the truth, and (3) to encourage and edify believers in their faith.” (204)
March 22, 2021
Strawman special! Wow...
Fesko is adequate in seeking to show the validity of "the book of nature." Something that CVT didn't not reject. CVT's argumentation was founded in creation and humanity being created in God's image. CVT never denied natural revelation. His concern was over what sinful, rebellious humanity sought to do with that revelation: distort, twist, and suppress it. That's the problem that Fesko barely addresses.
As far as a critique of CVT, Fesko's Reforming Apologetics fails miserably. Yes, CVT isn't the easiest to read, but the amount of misrepresentation, strawmen, and lack of nuance is simply overwhelming. It makes Fesko's work painful to read.
Reformed Apologetics would have been far better served if Fesko actually sought to make some biblical-theological arguments defending his thesis. The majority of his work is focused on proving historical arguments which in the end only prove the history of an idea, not the scriptural veracity of an idea.
There are plenty of other reviews written by others far more capable than myself.
Anderson - https://www.proginosko.com/2019/06/re...
Bredenhof - https://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/201...
Waldron - https://founders.org/2019/07/02/j-v-f...
Fesko is adequate in seeking to show the validity of "the book of nature." Something that CVT didn't not reject. CVT's argumentation was founded in creation and humanity being created in God's image. CVT never denied natural revelation. His concern was over what sinful, rebellious humanity sought to do with that revelation: distort, twist, and suppress it. That's the problem that Fesko barely addresses.
As far as a critique of CVT, Fesko's Reforming Apologetics fails miserably. Yes, CVT isn't the easiest to read, but the amount of misrepresentation, strawmen, and lack of nuance is simply overwhelming. It makes Fesko's work painful to read.
Reformed Apologetics would have been far better served if Fesko actually sought to make some biblical-theological arguments defending his thesis. The majority of his work is focused on proving historical arguments which in the end only prove the history of an idea, not the scriptural veracity of an idea.
There are plenty of other reviews written by others far more capable than myself.
Anderson - https://www.proginosko.com/2019/06/re...
Bredenhof - https://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/201...
Waldron - https://founders.org/2019/07/02/j-v-f...
February 21, 2024
The book is easy to read and simple in its assertions. I however, have two significant issues with the book:
(1) I am not a Van Tilian Presuppositionalist (though my undergrad and MA degrees were earned at a university that is presuppositional in its apologetics and I tend to appreciate presuppositional arguments), but this book’s primary argument is against Van Til, which isn’t reflected in its name at all. Very little of the book is actually concerned with reforming apologetics, much of the book is focused on attacking Van Til’s ideology.
(2) I don’t agree with Fesko’s chapter on worldview. He has a very narrow definition of worldview and he argues that a proper worldview is one that is exhaustive in all regards—as in, a proper worldview needs to have answers for every issue in life. This means (according to Fesko) that if Christianity is indeed a worldview, it would have to have unique opinions about everything. The implication is that worldviews can’t share opinions with other worldviews and thus, worldviews are unbiblical. However, I don’t know of a single person who argues for a biblical or Christian worldview that thinks that the worldview of Christianity is entirely unique in every aspect—to me, Fesko’s argument is a straw man.
(1) I am not a Van Tilian Presuppositionalist (though my undergrad and MA degrees were earned at a university that is presuppositional in its apologetics and I tend to appreciate presuppositional arguments), but this book’s primary argument is against Van Til, which isn’t reflected in its name at all. Very little of the book is actually concerned with reforming apologetics, much of the book is focused on attacking Van Til’s ideology.
(2) I don’t agree with Fesko’s chapter on worldview. He has a very narrow definition of worldview and he argues that a proper worldview is one that is exhaustive in all regards—as in, a proper worldview needs to have answers for every issue in life. This means (according to Fesko) that if Christianity is indeed a worldview, it would have to have unique opinions about everything. The implication is that worldviews can’t share opinions with other worldviews and thus, worldviews are unbiblical. However, I don’t know of a single person who argues for a biblical or Christian worldview that thinks that the worldview of Christianity is entirely unique in every aspect—to me, Fesko’s argument is a straw man.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews