Pressing Toward The Mark is a collection of essays commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, edited by C. G. Dennison and Rick Gamble. The following is a synopsis of just one of the articles, hopefully providing you with a taste of the fine fare offered in the collection.

In an essay entitled “Machen, Van Til and the Apologetical Tradition of the OPC,” Dr. Greg Bahnsen deals with the assumption made by many that the apologetical approaches of Cornelius Van Til and J. Gresham Machen were not compatible, perhaps even principally irreconcilable. Machen’s approach was decidedly historical in nature, citing, expounding and explaining God’s acts of history. Van Til, of course, deals with the philosophical pre-conditions of knowledge, asserting that the facts of history (for example) could not be meaningfully interpreted apart from Christian presuppositions.

Bahnsen relieves the supposed tension by approaching the issue from 3 different angles: 1) A historical review of the relationship between the two men, 2) An explanation, once again, of Van Til’s actual position vis-a-vis the use of evidences in the apologetical task, and 3) An elucidation of Machen’s own view of the value of evidence.

In the first place, through a roughly chronological account of the points of contact -· between the two great apologists, Dr. Bahnsen demonstrates that “Machen was hardly in the dark as to Van Til’s point of view and method , and Van Til could not have been ignorant of Machen’s.” The value of this conclusion is seen when one remembers the enormous intellectual capacities of each (hence, it could not be argued that neither understood the other). the lack of any critical material produced by one about the position of the other, and, most of all, the eagerness with which they each sought association with the other to take their stand together against Christianity’s enemies.

In the second place, Dr. Bahnsen had, once again, to refute the false “assumptions about Van Til’s view of such tools as empirical evidence and theistic proofs in defending the faith.” I can only trust that Bahnsen’s brief survey of Van Til’s actual position would put to rest the charges of fideism that are so often leveled against the beloved Professor. After all, how much plainer on this subject could one be than Van Til was when he said, “Historical apologetics is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND INDISPENSABLE to point out that Christ rose from the grave,” etc.

The particular value of such evidences, however, was more fully discussed under the third head, Machen’s own apologetic approach. There it was shown that their chief value is in a) encouraging the believer, and b) embarrassing the unbeliever. Dr. Bahnsen reveals how Machen parted company with Warfield just here. Warfield, having allowed for neutrality, unrealistically elevated the value of evidences. It is important to note, however that Dr. Bahnsen does not suggest that Dr. Machen ever fully shrugged off the influences of the Princeton approach. His thesis is not that Van Til and Machen used identical approaches or methodologies, but simply that there was no principal antithesis between them, and further, that when rightly understood, their distinctive approaches BOTH began with the Bible, with the SYSTEM of truth taught in the confessions, and with the understanding that “philosophical (presuppositional) apologetics forms the context within which the use of evidences is intelligible and forceful.”

“The judgment is thus warranted . . . that the apologetic of Machen and that of Van Til do not stand diametrically opposed to each other, but rather, when taken in concert, sound a strong and harmonious trumpet call to arms in defense of the historic Christian faith.”

Reformed apologetics, like the Reformed worldview, gives full value to all particulars (indeed, it alone can discover the full value of all aspects of life) because it has first come to know, enjoy and honor the God Who alone created, gives meaning to, and absolutely controls all of life and history. Evidences under God, the God of the Bible, are seen to have great value in serving His purposes. These purposes are defied if and whenever evidences are presented AS IF they could even possibly be correctly and meaningfully interpreted apart from Him.

Bahnsen’s essay, being just one of thirty, makes this book a “must” for every Presbyterian or Reformed believer who’d like to sample some of the finest current American Presbyterian thinking.

Steve M. Schlissel is the Pastor of Messiah’s Christian Reformed Church, 2666 East 22nd St., Brooklyn, New York 11235.