Warfield
At the outset it should be mentioned that Van Til understood that both Warfield and Kuyper held to essentially the same solid, biblically based Reformed theology and that his critical appropriation of each was done with the goal of formulating an apologetic more consistent with the solid theology each man embraced.¹

As noted previously in (W1), Warfield was so convinced of the objectivity, intelligibility, and clarity of revelation to all men in nature and history that it was not reasonable for anyone to reject the truth of Christianity.² The evidence of the truth of Christianity is available for all to assess, regardless of spiritual condition. Arguing against the notion that the validity of the faith resides in the subjective change that occurs in regeneration, Warfield notes,

It is not true that the Christian view of the world is subjective merely, and is incapable of validation in the forum of pure reason. It is not true that the arguments adduced for the support of the foundation of the Christian religion lack objective validity. It is not even true that the minds of sinful men are inaccessible to the “evidences”…³

In other words, the evidence for the validity of the Christian faith was a matter of public record. It was not, conversely, merely about personal predilection. Warfield readily grants that the presence of evidence will not in and of itself convert an unbeliever to the faith, for that is the work of the Holy Spirit. But the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is not done in the absence of the revelation of God in nature and history.

It is certainly not in the power of all the demonstrations in the world to make a Christian. Paul may plant and Apollos water; it is God alone who gives the increase. But it does not seem to follow that Paul would as well, therefore, not plant, and Apollos as well not water. Faith is the gift of God; but it does not in the least follow that the faith God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds in right reason. It is beyond all question only the prepared heart that can fitly respond to the “reasons”; but how can even a prepared heart respond, when there are no “reasons” to draw out its action?⁴

God’s revelation to all men in nature and history is compelling and while it does not convert the unbeliever by itself, it does need to be present for conversion to have a context in which to occur.

Given the clarity of this revelation, Warfield saw the necessity of apologetics. Christianity was in the world, Warfield said, to reason its way to preeminence.⁵ There was no need to be timid or shy. Christianity was true and it was even “scientific” in the best sense of that word.⁶

Apologetics for Warfield, however, was positioned at the head of the theological encyclopedia because its goal was to illuminate the grounds for the possibility of a Christian theology. Apologetics sought to show that there was a God, the possibility of revelation, the nature of man as able to communicate with God and receive revelation, and then it sought to display and assess the evidence of revelation in the Christian Scriptures.⁷ Warfield practiced the classical apologetic method which usually involved a two-step method of first showing the possibility or reality of a God (often in philosophical terms) and then moved to the historical evidence found in the Christian Scriptures.⁸ However, he also makes statements to the effect that Christianity should be defended as a system, in its totality, and not detail by detail.⁹

End Notes
1. See Van Til, Christian Theory, 230, for his realization that Warfield and Kuyper were sound and similar in their theology. For his goal in critically appropriating their apologetical insights, see the first entry in this blog series.

2. Banhsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 597.

3. Warfield, “Introduction,” Writings, 2: 103. This quotation is not without its own problems. What, for instance, is “pure reason”? However, the objectivity of evidence is the issue here. Warfield here is arguing against what he perceives to be a mystical strain in the thought of Kuyper where Kuyper, according to Warfield, has fallen into the trap of attributing the validity of Christianity to the subjective change that occurs within the Christian in regeneration without consideration for the objective evidence for the truth of Christianity.

4. Warfield, “Introduction,” Writings, 2: 98. See also “Apologetics,” Works, 9: 15.

5. Warfield, “Introduction,” Writings, 2: 99-100.

6. Science as, at a minimum, the organization of knowledge. See Warfield’s discussion of theology as a science in “Theology as a Science,” in Writings, 2: 207-212. Kuyper also discusses the nature of science in his Principles, 59-63.

7. Warfield, “Apologetics,” Works, 9: 4-5, 11.

8. See Warfield’s enlightening article, “Apologetics,” Works, 9: 3-21,where Warfield elaborates on his understanding of apologetics.

9. Warfield, “Apologetics,” Works, 9: 8-9.