Review of John Fesko’s Reforming Apologetics - 800 - 1400 words

Reforming Apologetics is a challenging book for Cornelius Van Til apologetics. John Fesko tries
to retrieve the classic reformed approach defending that it needs to recover the value of the
book of nature, that is, the importance not simply argue in a transcendental way as Cornelius
Van Til and his disciples propose, however (but also???), to come back to the classical form of
arguing also from the facts of nature and the common notions that man is embedded from his
creation. Fesko makes an overview of the classical method of apologetics showing firstly how
Reformed Theology has never abandoned the light of nature. For this task, chapter 1 deals
with the notion of light of nature in Westminster Confession of Faith, afterward in chapter 2
Fesko goes deep to define and defend the common notions that all human beings share.
However, Fesko identifies the need not simply to argue from the tradition of Reformed thought
in the seventeenth century (????). Then, in chapter 4 there is a presentation of Calvin’s
theology concerning the common notions and how he never went astray of Scholasticism. At
this moment, Fesko demonstrates the importance and the real thinking of Thomas Aquinas in
chapter 4 to discuss critically in chapter 5 the concept of worldview used by reformed thinkers
of our time. Chapters 6 and 7 are designed to criticize Cornelius Van Til’s and Herman
Dooyeweerd’s thought respectively to show how they based their thoughts on modern
autonomous thinking. Finally chapter 8 we find the proposition of Reforming Apologetics
retrieving as mentioned above the role of the book of nature and the common notions to
defend the biblical faith.
Dr. Fesko is the academic dean and the professor of systematic and historical theology at
Westminster Seminary California. His ability in academic research can be remarked through
the pages of his book. As he mentions, he writes this book from a systematic and historical
perspective due to his training in these main areas although he has been trained in philosophy
as well. Without a doubt, Dr. Fesko is erudite with a large experience and knowledge mainly in
the theme of the book. The bibliography is copious covering a wide range of subjects
concerning apologetics. From this fact, Dr. Fesko is aware of the main discussions and at the
same time, we can note his pastoral preoccupation to furnish a coherent Reformed method of
apologetics to Christians defend their faith.
By the way, Dr. Fesko has a very intriguing manner of arguing and some points are worthy of
being noted. However, his criticism of the apologetical method of Cornelius Van Til that
permeates the whole book is not the goal of this review since he misses the point completely.
Moreover, Dr. James N. Anderson has been doing a very precise comment of each chapter of
Dr. Fesko’s book and I highly recommend it to see a critical position by a vantilian expert.
Probably, Dr. Van Til would agree with the majority of the arguments from Dr. Fesko, because
Dr. Fesko is more vantilian than he would like to acknowledge. I have more affinity to
Dooyeweerd’s thought and I will not comment on either the chapter concerning Dooyeweerd’s
thinking because Dr. Fesko, unfortunately, did not understand the philosophical proposition of
the Dutch thinker at the point that he turns over many of Dooyeweerd’s ideas. For a critical
view of the chapter consecrated to Dooyeweerd, I would like to recommend Rudi Hayward's
article which demonstrates the imprecisions of Dr. Fesko’s book as well. It is not a matter of
defending Cornelius Van Til or Herman Dooyeweerd, however, the position of both of them
must be described in an honest and corrected way. Mainly, due to the harshness that Dr.
Fesko criticizes both Van Til and Dooyeweerd in their method concerning the pretended
dependence on the modern philosophy, it is worth to consider the chapters dealing with
Thomas Aquinas Philosophical Theology and the reception from John Calvin of Scholasticism
where Dr. Fesko’s strongly depends on Thomas philosophical theology.
Unfortunately, Dr. Fesko reduces the genius of Cornelius Van Til through a critical position that
misses the goal. Van Til was brilliant when he identified the major problem of Thomas's natural
theology, that is, its dependence on the pseudo-dionysian triple way, that is, (causalitatis-
excelentiae-remotionis). For Thomas the knowledge of God can be acquired by causality, that
is, the perfections found in creature have their causes in God, by excellence, that is, the
perfections found in creature is excellently found in God and by removal, that is, it is removed
from God the limited way presented in creatures. Then, the conclusion is obvious, as Van Til
has seen, to support this method of knowing God, the difference between Creator and creature
has to be denied. A logical implication is that God can be known completely by this method. In
this way, Dr. Fesko has done a very naif reading of Thomas accepting his method, his five
ways to prove God’s existence and his theological assumptions. It seems that even his
argumentation concerning the common notion and the book of nature has been biased by
these trends of Thomas epistemology.
Van Til saw that the way of removal is completely metaphysical without any support from Holy
Scripture. If it is accepted in theological reasoning as it is the case of Thomas ’ system of
thought, a mystical presupposition becomes the foundation to sustain the whole theological
elaboration. Then, Thomas, by this way of thinking, opens the gates to the possibility of an
autonomous reason that uses the classical metaphysics as a structure of thought. This is the
reason that Thomas Aquinas cannot be considered as a rationalist, but a mystical. It is not a
simple relation of cause-to-effect reasoning, but a metaphysical dependence on a mystical way
of thinking completely strange to Holy Scriptures. In this way, Thomas has built a whole
theological cathedral of cards. Then, both John Calvin, Cornelius Van Til and Herman
Dooyeweerd have been aware of it and this the reason that they could not continue to follow
Thomas's propositions. In Calvin’s thought, there is a rupture with the scholastic way of
thinking due to this strong dependence on metaphysics something that Dr. Fesko has
unfortunately miscomprehended thinking that Scholasticism is simply a method. To sustain his
appreciation of Scholasticism, Dr. Fesko creates a Thomist Calvin forgetting a big difference
between both theologians. Calvin sustains a sola scriptura principle while for Thomas it is not
the case.
In conclusion, probably an audience inclined to reformed scholasticism or a classical method of
apologetics will appreciate Dr. Fesko’s book. Although Dr. Fesko has raised some important
issues concerning vantilian apologetics and dooyeweerdian thought, it misses the point in
many aspects. At the end of the book, we cannot find a real proposition but just a return to
classical apologetics biased by Thomas thought even though Dr. Fesko proposes a tool kit to
do apologetics. More can be noted, however, I think we have already a good picture of the
book. It is worth to highlight yet the pastoral preoccupation and the high level of academic
proficiency that Dr. Fesko employs in his book.