AGREEING AND DISAGREEING WITH WARFIELD AND KUYPER- John Azie Kaivin T. Pascual

AGREEING AND DISAGREEING WITH WARFIELD AND KUYPER

According to Van Til the ineffectiveness of Traditional Method of apologetics is that there philosophical view that is Biblically deficient. During the time of Van Til’s education, there were two people who had a great impact on him and his views: Abraham Kuyper and Benjamin Warfield. Instead of focusing on one side of the two apologists, Van Til combined the two ideas from Kuyper and Warfield. This paved a way for Van Til’s writings to be worth reading and studying.

Van Til looked for both strengths and weaknesses of the two apologists. He uses and combined both strength. It is said that the person who can best explain the ways of Van Til’s agreement to the point of view of Kuyper and Warfield is a person who really understand apologetics.

According to Warfield the person has the ability to interpret the natural revelation of God. However, his point has error at this part for it is impossible to a man to have a right reason due to total depravity of his nature that’s why there is a need for Scriptures to be revealed to a person. Only through the Scripture the distorted mind can be changed that’s why knowing God and His Words must come first. Kuyper’s distinctive and masterful insight into apologetics was that the two conflicting principles that are at work in the believer and the unbeliever - submission to God versus freedom. He recognized the significance of the alienation of the natural man from God, in contrast to the regenerating and enlightening work of the Holy Spirit in the believer.

Here’s Kuyper’s viewpoint, First, he believed that some of man’s abilities to deal with external matters (e.g., weighing, measuring, and using logic) are not affected by his depravity. Second, he interpreted common grace in such a way that there is a limited area of neutral common ground where the regenerate and the unregenerate meet on equal terms and arrive at common interpretations of the facts. But there is an error with his perspective. Because once a man’s whole being was depraved his way of thinking was also affected. I would not agree on Kuyper’s view because it is very clear that because of our sinful nature the body, mind and soul was corrupted. However when we accept Jesus as Lord, our spirit is perfected. It is the Spirit that will work in us while our mind and body were still in the fallen state, through time it is being sanctified that’s why we are in a process while our body is not yet glorified.

Van Til engineered a system of apologetics that has tremendous intellectual strength and is free from the inconsistencies of Warfield and Kuyper. According to Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic, there are indeed two conflicting worldviews and conceptions of science, but the objective rationality of the Christian worldview is provable by the transcendental argument that non-Christian presuppositions render reasoning unintelligible. That is, apologetics is indeed powerful and useful because it can demonstrate that the unbeliever cannot exercise “right reason”.

Through the above points, we can see the importance that biblical wisdom should not be used for debating. Instead, the presentation of the truth must be conveyed in a way that is understood by all and disputes are avoided. The purpose of apologetics should be clear to every Christian that it is not used to show you are good at the Bible or that you are the only one who is right. Instead, it must be used first and foremost for the truth, to spread the Good News and to bring man closer to God. What is needed is a solution and not division.

Today, Van Til’s evaluation could be our guide as we learn more about apologetics. It could have a great impact to us. It is important because we can have two perspective as one and we will understand Warfield and Kuyper more. Having the strengths of both views, we will see things wider and we will be able to provide a better application as we combine both ideas. Understanding the two points is now easier because of Van Til’s modification where he simplified and specified the subject. I could see Van Til as a wise person and salute him for not having biases. I have learned that his character must also be our character to not only be one sided but to have a keen eye that always see the different angle to clearly see the whole picture in order to provide a solution and not division, consensus instead of disagreement.