by Pastor Mark Chin

INTRODUCTION

Though many Christian scholars dispute the proper methodology for Christian apologetics, few dispute its definition, its significance, or its purpose for the Christian faith. Almost all Christian apologists, whatever their epistemological or methodological conviction, color, or stripe may be, invariably begin by paying homage to what Dr. Bahnsen describes as the “verse that has long been taken as the biblical charter for Christian apologetics” – 1 Peter 3:15. [1] Apologetics, deriving its name from the Greek word for defense, apologia, is then commonly defined as that “branch of theology that offers a rational defense for the truthfulness of the divine origin and the authority of Christianity.” [2] Its purpose, whatever method one may choose, is commonly agreed upon and narrowly defined by most to be twofold: (1) to bolster the faith of Christian believers, and (2) to aid in the task of evangelism. [3]

Presuppositional apologists, for the most part, concur with such definitions and purpose statements for their practice. John Frame defines apologetics as “the discipline that teaches Christians how to give a reason for their hope.” [4] Presuppositional apologetics, according to Bahnsen, defends Christianity taken as a whole, vindicates Christian theism, and provides a basic method for answering every challenge brought to bear against the Christian faith. [5] Frame admirably sets this discipline within a larger context than most – the glory of God. Consequently his defining purpose statement for apologetics is grander than most – it is the proclamation of a message that “ultimately, is nothing less than the whole of Scripture, applied to the needs of his hearers.” [6] In practice, however, the end purposes for presuppositional apologists are similar to those of other Christian apologists. They seek to rationally defend the truth of Christianity for the two-fold purpose of defending and propagating what the (reformed) Christian believes. [7] What distinguishes them from other apologists is not necessarily the purpose of apologetics, but rather the path to this purpose.

It is my conviction that such purposes, though biblical, fall well short of the divine purpose for apologetics. Apologetics, especially presuppositional apologetics, has a much greater purpose for the church, the believer, and the world – a purpose that goes well beyond evangelism and Christian assurance. This purpose is most explicitly articulated by the apostle Paul in Colossians 1:28: “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.” [8]

I believe that presuppositional apologetics is critical for the preservation and promotion of the holiness, the purity, and the glory of God in the body of Christ, in the daily lives of the individual believer, and in the world at large – for the purpose of presenting every man complete in Christ. I believe that one of the most significant and most neglected divine purposes for apologetics is our sanctification in Christ. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the apostle Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. In Paul’s epistle to the Galatians we are given a clear example of presuppositional apologetics. However in the Apostle Paul’s hands, we see an apologetic whose purpose was not merely to evangelize unbelievers, to provide assurance for the doubts of believers, or to respond to challenges to the faith, but to present every man complete in Christ through a presuppositional defense of the true gospel of Christ.

Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians as Apologia

When considering biblical examples of apologetics in practice, invariably Acts 17, 22, 24, and occasionally 2 Cor.10: 3-5; 12:12; Phil. 1:7 are cited. [9] Galatians is almost nowhere to be found in scholarly treatments of Christian apologetics. Yet Paul’s epistle to the Galatians exemplifies and sets the standard for Christian apologetics on multiple levels. By virtue of content alone, it is “Paul’s most direct defense and exposition of justification by faith, which is so much the heart of Paul’s understanding of the gospel and of Christian experience.” [10] Its divine challenge to distortions of the gospel is fundamental to the apostle Paul, to the individual believer, to the church, and to the true Christian faith, especially during times of soteriological uncertainty. [11]

Paul’s epistle to the Galatians is quite possibly “the first written of Paul’s extant letters … and possibly antedates everything else written in the NT.” [12] As such, it provides a divinely inspired document of one of the earliest apologetics of the gospel in the history of the church. The occasion for Paul’s defense was the defection by Galatian believers from the true gospel of grace in Christ in favor of a hybrid Christ plus works of the Law Christianity. This was the result of a two-front attack on the Christian faith: (1) a direct frontal attack by false teachers from the Judaizer party who promoted a justification and sanctification by works of the Law and (2) an indirect rear attack by prominent Jewish believers, including Peter and Barnabas, whose fearful separation from Gentile believers endorsed the same heretical position in deed if not by word. As such, Paul’s defense of the gospel provided an apologetic for not only Gentile believers, but also believing Jews, unbelieving Jewish opponents of the gospel, leaders of the church, and the church at large. “The Epistle was written as an answer to the Judaizers who were troubling the Gentile churches of Galatia with their insistent demands that, to be a good Christian, one had first to become a good Jew.” [13]

Betz argues that, when analyzed according to Greco-Roman rhetoric and epistolography, “Galatians is an ‘apologetic letter’ that conforms closely to the requirements of forensic rhetoric (i.e. rhetoric addressed to a jury or judge, which seeks to defend or accuse someone with regard to certain past actions) as set out in the handbooks of rhetoric by Aristotle (Rhetoric), Cicero, and others.” [14] Some feel that Betz pushes this argument too far. [15] However most agree that the elements of both an epistolary framework and an apologetic genre are part of one and the same composition. [16]

Conforming to the apologetic genre not only in style, organization, and purpose, the content of Galatians is built largely around both positive and negative arguments for the cornerstone of the true gospel of grace – justification by faith in Christ alone. [17] Consequently, Paul’s letter to the Galatians is essentially, in form, style, content, and purpose, a divinely inspired apologetic defense of the true gospel. Close analysis reveals that it is an apologetic letter that strongly endorses the presuppositional position on apologetic method.

Epistemology and Apologetics

To understand Paul’s apologetic method, one must first understand the central role of epistemology in apologetics. Dr. Bahnsen makes the point that “epistemology is at the heart of apologetics.” [18] Epistemology, the theory or study of knowledge, is a branch of philosophy concerned with the source, scope, and limits of knowledge. [19] Conclusions about knowledge and its acquisition, the nature of truth, belief, meaning, evidence, proof, experience, and, ultimately, reality – essentially the building blocks of one’s worldview, the philosophical lens through which one interprets and responds to reality – are all informed by one’s theory of knowledge.

Practically applied, epistemology addresses the issue of how one verifies what is true or false. It also defines how one interprets and explains reality. Inasmuch as apologetics involves the defense of particular truth claims, apologetics “entails the application (even if the unwitting application) of one’s basic theory of knowledge.” [20]

The determining foundation of one’s particular epistemology, and consequently one’s worldview, is one’s ruling presuppositions – one’s network of ultimate assumptions and commitments about reality, knowledge, and ethics. [21]Three key presuppositions in particular determine and distinguish one’s epistemology: (1) one’s presupposition on the source of true knowledge (where does truth originate?), (2) one’s presupposition on the ultimate reference point for true knowledge (how is truth to be measured or verified?), and (3) one’s presupposition on the process of knowing true knowledge (how is truth to be acquired?). Obviously, differences in any of these three areas will result in different epistemologies, different truth claims, and consequently, conflicting worldviews.

Reformed Epistemology

For the reformed Christian, it is one’s whole-hearted all-consuming commitment to Christ as Savior and Lord and to His Word that is to determine one’s presuppositions, one’s epistemology, and one’s worldview. The self-sufficient God of the Bible who created the universe in six days is the one and only source and starting point of true knowledge, not man. [22] Van Til notes that “God himself is the source of all possibility, and, therefore, of all space-time factuality.” [23]

As such, God, as revealed in His Word and in Christ, is also the ultimate reference point – the ultimate standard and authority – of true knowledge. It is not man, the reason of man, nor the expertise of man. Van Til points out : “If God is self-sufficient, he alone is self-explanatory. And if he alone is self-explanatory, then he must be the final reference point in all human predication.”  [24] Bahnsen notes : “The believer understands that truth fundamentally is whatever conforms to the mind of God.” [25] “ ‘Reason’ is simply an intellectual tool, rather than an ultimate standard of knowledge (more authoritative even than God), and as such will be affected by the regenerate or unregenerate condition of the man using it.” [26]

Finally, as finite creatures made in His image by Him, the process of man’s knowing is completely dependent on the ultimate source and reference point of true knowledge. Consequently, “the way in which we know anything at all is first and foremost a matter of revelation.” [27] As fallen creatures who have rejected God and His Word, the only way in which we can receive His revelation rightly, is through complete dependence on the saving work of Christ that provides the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the heart and mind of man (Jn 3:3). The acquisition of truth, then, is first and foremost a spiritual process as opposed to an intellectual one, according to the reformed Christian worldview.

Clearly, as demonstrated above, one’s particular epistemology is the product of one’s ultimate commitments. Consequently one’s epistemology and the truth claims that it arrives at are essentially an expression of worship. Who or what will sit on the throne of truth? Who or what will determine truth in my life? Inasmuch as anything or anyone but God occupies any three of these controlling commitments or presuppositions, in part or in whole, it follows that a different god is being worshipped, a different epistemology is being promoted, and different truth claims will be embraced that are opposed to the truth of the gospel. Consequently, there is no neutral ground between different epistemologies. So “Van Til taught that abstract epistemological neutrality is an illusion and that, given the kind of God revealed in the Bible, imagined neutrality is actually prejudicial against God.” [28] Disagreements over what is truth are disagreements over epistemologies that in turn are disagreements over ultimate commitments that in turn are disagreements over the object of worship.

Epistemology in Paul’s Defense of the Faith

Central, then, to the discussion of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians as an apologia of the true gospel of Christ is the issue of conflicting epistemologies – that of Paul and that of the straying Galatians, the compromised believing Jews, and the Judaizers. The apostle Paul takes great pains in this epistle to delineate and distinguish the two separate epistemologies the conflicting truth claims they have both spawned. The truth claim of the Judaizers that was being embraced by the Galatians and endorsed by the behavior of the believing Jews, was that both justification and sanctification were based upon faith in Christ plus works of the Law. [29]  In direct opposition to this truth claim, Paul presents justification by faith in Christ alone (Gal 2:16-17) and not by works of the Law as the central propositions of this defense of the true gospel. Based upon this defense, Paul concludes and exhorts sanctification by the Spirit of God (Gal 5:16) as opposed to sanctification by works of the flesh.

In the first three chapters of Galatians, Paul lays out clearly and explicitly his epistemology for the truth claims of the gospel. In doing so, he tears down that of his opponents. Explicit in Paul’s defense are Paul’s presuppositions on: (1) the source of true knowledge, (2) the ultimate reference point of true knowledge, and (3) the process of knowing true knowledge.

The source of true knowledge for Paul is the God of the Bible and not man. Paul is an apostle “not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead” (Gal 1:1). Paul’s truth claim, the gospel of Christ, “is not according to man” but rather it is entirely from God (Gal 1:11). Paul spends the better part of the first two chapters demonstrating that God alone and not man, in any way, is the source of the gospel of Christ that he has preached.

Paul’s ultimate reference point for true knowledge is the Word of God, specifically the revealed gospel of Christ and not the tradition, teachings, or expertise of men(Gal 1:12). Paul measures every truth claim and all behavior against the ultimate measure and authority of the gospel (Gal 1:6-10). In Galatians 2:14, Paul explicitly describes “the truth of the gospel” as the fixed point of reference with which to measure all reality, including both knowledge and behavior. Consequently he describes Peter and the believing Jews attempt at neutral behavior in matters of faith and the Law as literally “not walking straight towards the truth of the gospel.” [30] Longenecker concludes: “The implicit major premise is that all messages received by revelation from God have ultimate authority, which is the premise that shapes the entire argument of Galatians.” [31]

By contrast, the teaching of men, the expertise of men, and the reputation of men are clearly denounced by Paul as having no authority and value in and of themselves in the measure of truth (Gal 1:11). “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me” (Gal 2:6). From the premise that ultimate authority rests entirely on direct revelation from God (what Paul has faithfully proclaimed) he “concludes that the message of the Judaizers is under a curse since it contradicts what he proclaimed (1:8-9).” [32]

Paul’s process of receiving true knowledge is admittedly first and foremost by revelation and not by any act of reason, intellectual achievement, or personal work. Paul explicitly states that the truth of the gospel, the ultimate reference point for all true knowledge, is something he “neither received … from man, nor was … taught by man, but … received… through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal1:12). Furthermore, in light of man’s finite, fallen, condition, Paul makes clear that this involves the regenerating work of the Spirit in the life of the recipient – something that is received by faith (total dependency on God) and not by works of the Law (Gal 3:1-5). For Paul, truth is a gift entirely from God. Any attempts to promote, sell, or acquire it by any other means are attempts to deny its divine source.

By contrast, the truth claims of the Judaizers and the behavior of the Galatians and the believing Jews reflect a hybrid epistemology. Truth source, ultimate reference point, and process of receiving truth are all composed of a God plus “traditions of man/works of Law” hybrid entity. Veneration is given to experts in the Law, not God’s revealed word. Man is not dependent on God but on his own ability to perform “the traditions of the Jews.”

It is an epistemological model that Van Til uses to describe the Roman Catholic and Arminian position, “where God and man become partners in an effort to explain a common environment.” [33] This can be seen in the Council of Trent where the Catholic church bestowed the same authority to the “unwritten traditions” of the Catholic church as that attributed to God’s Word. [34] With the ultimate reference point and source for truth being both the direct revelation of God and the traditions of man, the authority for truth is no longer the self-sufficient God of the Bible. Christ can no longer be the sole Lord and Savior. Christ stands alongside the experts of the Law. Such an epistemology leaves no place for the gift of grace and faith in Christ alone. Such a hybrid epistemology, along with its truth claims and the behavior it engenders, is entirely hostile to the God of the bible and the truth of the gospel. This is the very point that Paul makes in his letter to the Galatians.

The Apostle Paul’s Method of Apologetics

In light of Paul’s explicit God-centered epistemology, it is no surprise that his apologetic method provides an excellent example of what is now called presuppositional apologetics. Paul’s commitment to the authority of Christ and His word for the entirety of his defense, rather than intellectual autonomy or the traditions of men, is self-evident throughout the entirety of Galatians (Gal 6:14,17). It is summed up by his self-reference as literally “a slave of Christ” (Gal 1:10) at the very outset of his defense. It is this commitment that shapes Paul’s starting point, Paul’s method of defense, and Paul’s conclusion.

Paul’s starting point does not include an appeal to human reason, to human expertise, or to some area of alleged common ground with his opponents. Instead, he “takes revelational authority as his starting point and controlling factor in all reasoning.” [35] The first five verses of his epistle proclaim the source of truth, the ultimate point of reference, and the process of receiving truth to be the God of the bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1-5). He explicitly articulates his total commitment and dependency on God, not man, for his present position as an apostle (Gal 1:1). He explicitly and succinctly proclaims his entire worldview up front. “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen” (Gal 1:3-5).

Paul’s method of defense then sets “his worldview with its scriptural presuppositions and authority in antithetical contrast to the worldview” of the Judaizers. [36] In the first two chapters Paul uses a narrative recounting of his past to unleash this gospel epistemology in direct confrontation and opposition to that promoted by the Judaizers, embraced by the Galatians, and endorsed indirectly by believing Jews. Throughout the entirety of this epistle he repeatedly contrasts the authority, revelation, justification, and sanctification of God with those of man, setting the two in direct opposition (Gal 1:1; 1:9-12; 2:5-6; 5; 6:14). In doing so he directly exposes the presupposition of his opponents epistemology and worldview, a Christ plus man hybrid, that ultimately places man on the throne of truth in place of God.

Paul then exposes the absurdity of the Judaizer’s position, showing “the impossibility of the contrary”. In his public rebuke of Peter (Gal 2:11-21), Paul demonstrates the internal inconsistency and absurdity of those who proclaim Jesus as Messiah but try to live by works of Law. The rational consistent conclusion of their epistemology, their truth claims, and their lifestyle – one based entirely on the teachings of experts in the Law – makes Christ a promoter of sin (Gal 1:17) who died needlessly (Gal 2:21) – contrary to their public confession of Jesus as Messiah.

Paul’s conclusion, like the entirety of his defense, allows no room for neutrality or common ground with the opposing worldview of the Judaizers. This is most notably demonstrated in his public confrontation and condemnation of those believing Jews, Peter and Barnabas chief among them, who tried to take a middle position on the issue of justification by faith in Christ alone verses works of the Law (Gal 2:11-14). By measure of the gospel of Christ, Paul publicly states that Peter in this matter “stood condemned” (Gal 2:11), being guilty of hypocrisy and of making a direct assault on the gospel, having departed from a straight walk towards the truth of the gospel – the ultimate reference point of truth.

So by measure of the truth of the gospel, Paul demonstrates that the Judaizers position is primarily a moral and ethical position that rejects the grace and cross of Christ (Gal 2:21). It is not a neutral intellectual one – something he explicitly concludes (Gal 6:13). As such, Paul explicitly demonstrated and proclaimed that the Judaizers, along with all who followed them, were morally culpable before God (Gal 1:8,9) for their truth claims – truth claims that were essentially a denial of the gospel. Paul’s defense ends with a warning of judgment, a call to repentance as evidenced by his exhortations in chapters 5 and 6, and a testimony of his enduring commitment to the cross of Christ alone (6:14, 17,18).

Paul’s Purpose – Beyond Presuppositional Apologetics

Inasmuch as Van Til and the presuppositional reformed apologists have built their entire apologetic position and method solely on the Word of God, it is no surprise that Paul’s defense of the gospel in his letter to the Galatians clearly endorses their work. Sadly, it is no surprise that it bears little resemblance to classical apologetics, evidential apologetics, and cumulative case apologetics. It is also no surprise that Galatians enabled Martin Luther to do in life what Van Til’s work did on paper – to confront and expose Romanism as an anti-gospel, anti-Christ worldview. However, in light of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, the presuppositional purposes for apologetics seem to fall short.

Clearly Paul’s purpose in writing this letter went well beyond merely “defending and propagating what the Christian believes.” [37] The false worldview and apologetic of the Judaizers had contaminated not only the minds of believers, but also the very life of the body of Christ – threatening to divide and destroy the entire church, along with the souls of many believers. The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 clearly demonstrates this truth, as does Paul’s testimony in Galatians (Gal 3:1; 5:4).

Inasmuch as believers and churches had succumbed in part or in whole to a hybrid Christ plus man epistemology, they too, stood just as much as unbelievers, in direct opposition to the gospel and as such, morally condemned by God. This was very much Paul’s point to Peter in Galatians 2:11-14. Clearly, Galatians was not written to make believers feel more certain or assured about their faith. Instead, it was written to make the believers feel most uncertain about their newfound hybrid faith in a life changing way.

Furthermore, Paul does not lay down his pen after having argued his case in the first four chapters of Galatians. He goes on in chapters five and six to exhort the Galatians to a sanctified life of liberty that is empowered by the Spirit of God as opposed to a life of immoral bondage to the flesh. Ultimately, Paul’s letters “were written to Christian believers for instruction in their common life together by one who was self-consciously an apostle, and so an official representative of early Christianity.” [38] Paul’s defense of justification by faith in Christ alone was made for the sanctification of the lives of individual believers and for the divine purification of the body of Christ as a whole. In this way, God used Paul’s apologetics to extend saving grace to a faltering church, to sanctify it, and to set the standard for how God intended the gospel message to not only be understood but also lived.

Conclusion

Longenecker points out that: “It is necessary to understand Galatians aright if we are to understand Paul and the rest of the NT aright… whatever its place in the lists of antiquity, the letter to the Galatians takes programmatic primacy for (1) an understanding of Paul’s teaching, (2) the establishing of a Pauline chronology, (3) the tracing out of the course of early apostolic history, and (4) the determination of many NT critical and canonical issues.” [39] For the same reason, it is necessary to understand and heed Paul’s apologetics in Galatians aright – its epistemology, its method, and its purposes, especially in light of its divine source and authority.

Key to understanding Paul’s apologetics aright is an appreciation of a critical gospel truth: the true gospel was given to transform and renew not only the mind of sinful man but also the entire life of sinful man. A proper defense of the gospel, as exemplified in Galatians, should hold us accountable and bring us back to this same truth. The gospel was given to present every man complete in Christ. The defense of the gospel should do no less. Inasmuch as any apologetic falls short of this same end, it falls short of the gospel it attempts to defend. Paul’s apologetics did not merely “bolster believer’s faith” or serve as an evangelistic tool for the propagation of it. Paul’s apologetics transformed lives because it was built upon the power and the purpose of the gospel of Christ.

Longenecker concludes: “Paul’s Galatians is, like a lion turned loose in the arena of Christians. It challenges, intimidates, encourages and focuses our attention on what is really essential as little else can. How we deal with the issues it raises and the teachings it presents will in large measure determine how we think as Christians and how we live as Christ’s own.” [40] Our apologetics should be and do no less.

[1] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1998) 1.

[2] Wayne H. House & Joseph M. Holden, Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidences, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006) Chart 1.

[3] Steven B. Cowan ed., Five Views on Apologetics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 8

[4] Frame, John M., Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction, (Philipsberg: P & R Publishing, 1994) 1.

[5] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, 34,36,38.

[6] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, 31.

[7] Van Til, Cornelius, The Defense of the Faith, (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1967) 67.

[8] All Scripture quoted is taken from NASB.

[9] Dr. Bahnsen’s choice of Scripture for a biblical exposition on presuppositional apologetics is Acts 17. It is placed in the appendix of the book Always Ready. (Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, Robert R. Booth ed, [Nacogdoches: CMP: P & R Publishing, 2008] 235-276).

[10] Ronald Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. , 1988) ix.

[11] A point made in my paper, “Was the Apostle Paul a Republican? Unity and Identity in Christ.” Submitted for Theology 3, Dr. Craigen, October 28,2009, TMS, M.Div.

[12] Richard Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians. [Columbia: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990] xli.

[13] Alan. R. Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1984) 23.

[14] Richard Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians. [Columbia: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990] cix.

[15] Ibid., civ.

[16] Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: Hermenieia Series, (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1979) 15.

[17] Ronald Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. , 1988) 115.

[18] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, 144.

[19] Cowan, 5 Views on Apologetics, 21.

[20] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, 144.

[21] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, 148.

[22] Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1969) 12.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, 163.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid., 146.

[27] Ibid., 163.

[28] Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, 145,6.

[29] Longenecker, Galatians. xcviii.

[30] Longenecker translates Paul’s verb, orthopdeio, the basis of the English term “orthodpedics” as “go straight towards a goal.” (Longenecker, Galatians. 77).

[31] Longenecker, Galatians, cxvi.

[32] Ibid., cxvi.

[33] Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge,12.

[34] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1955) 138.

[35] Bahnsen, Always Ready, 253.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 67.

[38] Longenecker, Galatians, cii.

[39] Longenecker, Galatians, xli.

[40] Ibid., lvii.