Sources & book details · CHRISTOlogisch

Book text · 4th, corrected edition 2026

Bibliography

Anderson, James N.; Welty, Greg: “The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic,” unpublished manuscript. Available online at: https://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf (accessed 14.09.2025).

Bahnsen, Greg L.: Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Edited by Joel McDurmon. Powder Springs, GA; Nacogdoches, TX: American Vision; Covenant Media Press, 2008.

Bormann, Lukas: Der Brief des Paulus an die Kolosser. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012.

Chatraw, Joshua D.; Allen, Mark D.: Apologetics at the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witness. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018.

Cheung, Vincent: Captive to Reason. No place of publication, 2004.

Cheung, Vincent: Systematic Theology. 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Reformation Online, 2005.

Cheung, Vincent: The View from Above. Boston, MA: Vincent Cheung, 2006.

Clement of Alexandria: Teppiche (Stromata). Bibliothek der Kirchenväter. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2024.

Davis, Oshea: The Undefeatable Worldview. Self-published, 2014.

DeMar, Gary (ed.): Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007.

Dever, Mark: 9 Merkmale einer gesunden Gemeinde. 4th edition. Waldems: 3L Verlag, 2018.

Dennison, William; Kloosterman, Nelson; Smith, Guy Prentiss (eds.): In Defense of the Eschaton. Essays in Reformed Apologetics. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015.

Dockery, David S.; Wax, Trevin: Christian Worldview Handbook. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2019.

Duffy, R. Michael: “Review of Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas by Ronald H. Nash.” In: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 9/17 (1996).

Euclid: Euclid’s Elements. Edited by Thomas L. Heath. Vol. 1. Medford, MA: Dover, 1956.

Evans, C. Stephen: Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Fesko, John V.: Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019.

Fiedrowicz, Michael: Handbuch der Patristik. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2010.

Figl, Johann; Hübner, Hans; Wenz, Gunther (eds.): “Offenbarung.” In: Hans Dieter Betz; Don S. Browning; Bernd Janowski; Eberhard Jüngel (eds.): Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 4th edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Frame, John M.: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. A Theology of Lordship. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1987.

Frame, John M.: Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995.

Freudenberg, Matthias: Der uns lebendig macht. Der Heilige Geist in Leben, Glaube und Kirche. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2018.

Geisler, Norman L.; Saleeb, Abdul: Answering Islam. The Crescent in Light of the Cross. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002.

Gottschalk, Linda: “Van Til, Cornelius.” In: Ed Hindson; Ergun Caner (eds.): The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.

Grudem, Wayne: Biblische Dogmatik. Eine Einführung in die Systematische Theologie. Translated by Volker Jordan. Theologisches Lehr- und Studienmaterial des Martin Bucer Seminars, vol. 29. Bonn; Hamburg: VKW; arche-medien, 2013.

Gropheim, Michael: “Nihilismus.” In: Hans Dieter Betz; Don S. Browning; Bernd Janowski; Eberhard Jüngel (eds.): Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 4th edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Hansberger, Andreas: “Induktion.” In: Albert Franz; Wolfgang Baum; Karsten Kreutzer (eds.): Lexikon philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2007.

Harper, Thomas: The Metaphysics of the School. Vol. 1. London: Macmillan and Co., 1879-1884.

Hund, Johannes: “Gründliche, reine, richtige und abschließende Wiederholung und Erklärung etlicher Artikel der Augsburger Konfession.” In: Johannes Hund; Hans-Otto Schneider (eds.): Unser Glaube. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. 2nd edition. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2021.

Hunt, June: Schlüssel zur biblischen Seelsorge. Vols. 1-5. Straubing: Precept Ministries International, 2006-2008.

Jones, Mark; Beeke, Joel R.: Systematische Theologie der Puritaner. Translated by Wilhelm Schneider. Waldems: 3L Verlag, 2019.

Jung, Friedhelm: Glaube kompakt. Grundzüge biblischer Dogmatik. 4th, revised and expanded edition. Bornheim; Bonn: Lichtzeichen Verlag, 2018.

Kaldewey, Jens: Römer. Die Bibel für Kopf und Herz (Der Bibletunes-Kommentar). Online publication. Bibletunes.de; Faithlife, 2022.

Lewis, Clive Staples: “Is Theology Poetry?” In: idem: They Asked for a Paper. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962.

Lewontin, Richard: “Billions and Billions of Demons.” In: The New York Review of Books, 9 January 1997, p. 31. Review of Carl Sagan: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Linnemann, Eta: Bibelkritik auf dem Prüfstand. Wie wissenschaftlich ist die „wissenschaftliche Theologie“?, revised edition. Nuremberg: VTR, 2012.

Lisle, Jason: Eine Frage der Logik. Warum der Glaube an die Bibel die Grundlage rationalen Denkens ist. Bielefeld: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, 2022.

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn: Gott der Heilige Geist. Translated by Volker Jordan. 3rd edition. Friedberg: 3L Verlag, 2016.

Luther, Martin: “Disputation gegen die scholastische Theologie.” In: Wilfried Härle; Johannes Schilling; Günther Wartenberg (eds.): Der Mensch vor Gott. Deutsche Texte. Translated by Wilfried Härle. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006.

MacArthur, John Jr.; Colson, Charles W.; et al.: Think Biblically! Recovering a Christian Worldview. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003.

MacDonald, William: Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. 7th edition. Bielefeld: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, 2018.

Melanchthon, Philipp: Schule und Universität, Philosophie, Geschichte und Politik. Edited by Michael Beyer; Stefan Rhein; Günther Wartenberg. 2nd, corrected edition. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011.

Miller, Tim: “A Critique of David Hume’s On Miracles.” In: Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 3/1 (2013).

Moreland, James Porter: “How Theistic Evolution Kicks Christianity out of the Plausibility Structure and Robs Christians of Confidence That the Bible Is a Source of Knowledge.” In: James Porter Moreland; Stephen C. Meyer; Christopher Shaw; Ann K. Gauger; Wayne Grudem (eds.): Theistic Evolution. A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

Morey, Robert A.: The Trinity: Evidence and Issues. Iowa Falls, IA: World Publishing, 1996.

Mühe, Ralf: Das Johannes-Evangelium. 2nd edition. Marienheide: BLB, 2020.

Müller, Klaus: “Grund (G.) / Kausalität (K.) / Ursache - Wirkung (UW.).” In: Albert Franz; Wolfgang Baum; Karsten Kreutzer (eds.): Lexikon philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2007.

Nichols, Larry A.; Mather, George A.; Schmidt, Alvin J.: Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

Pearcey, Nancy: Saving Leonardo. A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning. Nashville, TN: B&H Books, 2010.

Pearcey, Nancy; Johnson, Phillip E.: Total Truth. Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.

Ridderbos, Herman: Begründung des Glaubens. Heilsgeschichte und Heilige Schrift. Translated by Joachim Guhrt; Ron Kubsch. 1st edition. Bad Oeynhausen: Verbum Medien, 2025.

Rienecker, Fritz; Maier, Gerhard; Böhlemann, Helmut; et al.: “Elemente.” In: Lexikon zur Bibel. Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus, 2017.

Russell, Bertrand: Probleme der Philosophie. 2nd edition. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 2003.

Rushdoony, Rousas John: By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius Van Til. Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1995.

Schirrmacher, Thomas: Die Vielfalt biblischer Sprache. Bonn: VKW, 2017.

Schirrmacher, Thomas; Wünch, Hans-Georg (eds.): Das Gesetz der Liebe: Gott - Glaube - Ethik. Vol. 1. 6th edition. Nuremberg; Hamburg: RVB; VTR, 2020.

Senn, Felix: Verantwortet Glauben. Fundamentaltheologie. Vol. V. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2016.

Sjöstedt-H., Peter: Neo-Nihilism: The Philosophy of Power. Kindle edition, 22 April 2015. ASIN: B00HN844QI.

Sproul, Robert Charles: Gibt es Gott? Edited by Florian Gostner. Translated by Katie Domke. Fragen zum christlichen Glauben. 1st edition. Bad Oeynhausen: Verbum Medien, 2022.

Thomas Aquinas: Summa contra gentiles. Vol. 5. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1924.

Vorgrimler, Herbert: “Apologetik.” In: Neues Theologisches Wörterbuch. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2008.

Vorgrimler, Herbert: “Nihilismus.” In: Neues Theologisches Wörterbuch. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2008.

Vorgrimler, Herbert: “Prinzip.” In: Neues Theologisches Wörterbuch. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2008.

Vorgrimler, Herbert: “Relativismus.” In: Neues Theologisches Wörterbuch. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2008.

Vorgrimler, Herbert: “Skepsis, Skeptizismus.” In: Neues Theologisches Wörterbuch. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2008.

Wagner, Harald: Dogmatik. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, vol.

18. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2003.

Wendel, Saskia: “Regressus ad infinitum.” In: Albert Franz; Wolfgang Baum; Karsten Kreutzer (eds.): Lexikon philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2007.

Więckowski, Bartosz: “Relativ / Relativismus.” In: Albert Franz; Wolfgang Baum; Karsten Kreutzer (eds.): Lexikon philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2007.

Więckowski, Bartosz: “Prinzip.” In: Albert Franz; Wolfgang Baum; Karsten Kreutzer (eds.): Lexikon philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2007.

Footnotes

1 Cf. John MacArthur Jr. et al., Think Biblically! Recovering a Christian Worldview, Wheaton: Crossway, 2003, pp. 11-13; R. Michael Duffy, “Review of Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas by Ronald H. Nash”, in: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, vol. 9, no. 17 (1996), p. 84. Ronald Nash describes a worldview as a mental ordering model with which man - consciously or unconsciously - classifies everything he believes, experiences and understands. It is an inner grid with which we interpret and judge the world. According to Nash, every worldview begins with presuppositions, convictions that one accepts as a starting point rather than first proving. For him, the Christian worldview rests on two such basic assumptions: that there is an eternal, personal, triune Creator God - and that this God has revealed himself in the infallible and inerrant Bible.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 1

2 Cf. Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning, Nashville: B&H Books, 2010, chapter 3 (“Sex, Lies, and Secularism”), particularly the sections “PoMoSexual Alienation” and “Bodies Matter”. Here Pearcey takes up Francis Schaeffer's concept of the “fact/value split” and shows how postmodernism radicalizes it rather than resolving it: The biological reality of the body (fact) is subordinated to subjective interpretation (value). Gender becomes a free, fluid construction, completely detached from physical anatomy. Man becomes alienated from his own body and lives against the order of creation given by God. The body loses its dignity because its God-given meaning is denied. Biblical anthropology, by contrast, honors bodily identity as God's gift and an expression of his image (cf. Ps 139; Gen 2,23; Matt 19,6). Pearcey speaks here of metaphysical lostness - a consequence of worldview deception as well as moral deception.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 2

6 Cf. Fritz Rienecker et al., “Elemente”, in: Lexikon zur Bibel, Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus, 2017, p. 273; Thomas Schirrmacher, Die Vielfalt biblischer Sprache, Bonn: VKW, 2017, p. 94; Michael Fiedrowicz, Handbuch der Patristik, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2010, p. 614; Lukas Bormann, Der Brief des Paulus an die Kolosser, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012, p. 130. In Colossians 2,8, the expression “elements of the world” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου) denotes basic worldly principles of thought opposed to Christ. Originally, this meant the smallest building blocks or fundamental forces of the visible world. In religious contexts, these were often understood as supernatural powers to which people were subject. In Colossians, Paul warns against being taken captive by these pre-Christian and godless structures, whether through philosophy, human tradition or cultic rules. The decisive point is: These ways of thinking seem spiritual and profound, but are ultimately empty because they do not start from Christ. In the context of your book, this verse strikingly shows that there are always only two options: either a worldview “according to the elements of the world” - or “according to Christ”.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 6

8 Cf. June Hunt, Schlüssel zur biblischen Seelsorge, vols. 1-5, Straubing: Precept Ministries International, 2006-2008; Herbert Vorgrimler, “Apologetik”, in: Neues Theologisches Wörterbuch, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008, p. 52; Mark Dever, 9 Merkmale einer gesunden Gemeinde, 4th ed., Waldems: 3L Verlag, 2018, p. 140. Apologetics is a branch of theology concerned with the reasoned and justified defense of the Christian faith. The term comes from the Greek apologia, meaning “defense” or “answer.” Its aim is to show that faith in God, the Bible and Jesus Christ is true and sound rather than irrational. It answers objections, clarifies misunderstandings and shows the inner logic of the gospel. Apologetics must not be equated with evangelism. It seeks to prepare the ground so that the gospel can be understood and accepted at all. In this book, it serves precisely this purpose: It clears false presuppositions of thought out of the way and invites people to recognize the biblical worldview as the only sound foundation for truth, meaning and hope.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 8

9 Cf. Gary DeMar (ed.), Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, Powder Springs: American Vision, 2007, p. 30; Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, ed. Joel McDurmon, Powder Springs / Nacogdoches: American Vision / Covenant Media Press, 2008, p. 127; John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1987, pp. 125-126; William MacDonald, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 7th ed., Bielefeld: CLV, 2018, p. 1325. Presuppositional apologetics assumes that there is no neutral starting position in thought. Every person has basic assumptions from which he judges the world, even when he considers himself “objective” or “open.” The Bible shows that God, as Lord and owner of all creation, lays claim to all thinking. It would therefore be a contradiction to negotiate about God from an apparently neutral perspective, as though his existence were questionable. Christians should start from the absolute authority and truth of his revelation rather than argue as though God's Word were merely one possibility among many. Neutrality in this case would already mean taking sides, but against God. In this view, every confrontation with God's Word is a decision: Either one acknowledges Christ as Savior or one encounters him as Judge. There is no intermediate position.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 9

11 Even in mathematics, proofs are possible only if one starts from particular basic assumptions that are not themselves proved. In classical geometry, the famous parallel postulate is such an unprovable starting point. Put simply, it states that for a given line and a point outside that line, there is exactly one parallel. This axiom cannot be derived from other assumptions and is simply established as a foundation. In modern mathematics, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (with the axiom of choice) forms the most widely used foundation. It defines the basic rules for dealing with sets - the fundamental building blocks of mathematics. Every mathematical proof therefore presupposes a system of axioms that is accepted rather than questioned. Without this “faith” in the axioms, not a single theorem (a proved mathematical proposition) could be derived. Mathematics itself thus confirms that even its seemingly purely rational results ultimately rest on presupposed faith.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 11

13 Cf. Philipp Melanchthon, Schule und Universität, Philosophie, Geschichte und Politik, ed. Michael Beyer, Stefan Rhein and Günther Wartenberg, 2nd, corrected ed., vol. 1, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011, p. 162; Clement of Alexandria, Teppiche (Stromata), Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2024, p. 379; Andreas Hansberger, “Induktion”, in: Lexikon philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie, ed. Albert Franz, Wolfgang Baum and Karsten Kreutzer, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2007, p. 207; Martin Luther, “Disputation gegen die scholastische Theologie”, in: Der Mensch vor Gott: Deutsche Texte, ed. Wilfried Härle, Johannes Schilling and Günther Wartenberg, trans. Wilfried Härle, vol. 1, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006, p. 27. Aristotle recognized that knowledge cannot be traced back infinitely. If, whenever one asks for proof, one seeks another proof for that proof, one never reaches an end. First principles are therefore needed. He called them archē, meaning both “beginning” and “rule.” The idea is: There are starting points that also have a guiding force. One does not prove these principles - every proof already presupposes them. They are like a house's foundation: It supports the whole without itself being supported again. Melanchthon took up this thought and explained it through geometry. There are principles such as “The whole is greater than the part.” They stand at the beginning, one recognizes them, and from there the entire system of proofs unfolds. The same applies to all sciences: One needs starting points that are not themselves first derived. Clement of Alexandria additionally made clear that not all questions can be answered in the same way. Some can be clarified through sensory perception, such as: “Did it rain yesterday?” Others, however, touch moral or spiritual areas. For him, the question of God's providence is more than a theoretical problem; rejecting it deserves correction because it expresses an attitude toward God. This shows: Knowledge concerns our responsibility before God as well as neutral facts. Aristotle also counted induction among scientific methods - the path from the particular to the general. One observes many individual cases and draws a general rule from them. For example: “All the swans I have seen are white - therefore all swans are white.” But induction has limits: One can never see all cases. The next swan could be black. Induction therefore brings helpful, but never ultimate certainty. Luther's criticism must also be understood against this background. He said one must set aside the “whole of Aristotle” in theology. His point was: What is useful in philosophy and natural science is insufficient for knowing God. God cannot be grasped through human logic or mere observation. This requires God's self-revelation in his Word. Reason can serve, but it cannot be the ultimate source for truth about God.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 13

14 Cf. Bertrand Russell, Probleme der Philosophie, 2nd edition (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 2003), pp. 54-62. Bertrand Russell identified the problem of induction very clearly. Whenever we infer from what we have seen so far what will happen tomorrow or in the future, we make an inductive inference. For example: “The sun has risen every morning so far, so it will rise tomorrow too.” This sounds self-evident - but it is not logically compelling. Why? Because this inference presupposes that nature will behave in the future as it did in the past. But this very principle - that nature proceeds uniformly and regularly - cannot be proved without already tacitly assuming it. We cannot prove from experience that experience is reliable. An example: Imagine someone saying: “Because fire has always been hot so far, it will also be hot next time.” This thought rests on fire always behaving the same way. But that is an expectation rather than a logical necessity. Perhaps the next fire (theoretically speaking) would suddenly be cold. We merely believe it will not be so. Russell shows: This conviction is no result of logic. Rather, it arises from a habit of our thinking. We are accustomed to inferring repetitions from patterns. But we can never prove it must be so. The consequence: Every inductive inference is ultimately a step of faith. We trust that the world will behave tomorrow as it did yesterday. But we cannot prove it.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 14

15 Cf. Herbert Vorgrimler, Prinzip, in: Neues Theologisches Wörterbuch, Freiburg / Basel / Vienna: Herder, 2008, p. 520; Bartosz Więckowski, Prinzip, in: Lexikon Philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie, ed. Albert Franz, Wolfgang Baum, Karsten Kreutzer, Freiburg / Basel / Vienna: Herder, 2007, p. 330; Euclid, Euclid’s Elements, ed. Thomas L. Heath, vol. 1, Medford (MA): Dover, 1956, p. 121. Philosophy often speaks of “first principles” or “axioms” concerning the fundamental starting points of thought. These concepts are closely connected, but have slightly different meanings. A first principle means the very first beginning or origin. It is like the cornerstone without which an entire building cannot stand. It answers the question: From where can I begin to think and know at all? Aristotle called it archē - beginning and guiding force at once. An axiom denotes a principle one presupposes as self-evident rather than proves. This is particularly clear in mathematics: Euclid based his “Elements” on axioms such as “The whole is greater than the part.” No one can “prove” this - one recognizes it immediately and builds everything else upon it. A good everyday example is sport: Anyone who plays tennis must accept the rules beforehand. No one can first prove in the middle of a game that “a ball out of bounds” really is “out.” Without these basic assumptions, tennis would be chaos rather than a game. The rules stand at the beginning and make the game possible in the first place. Thought is similar: Before we discuss, we assume things - logic, language, the meaning of truth - otherwise we could not even begin. Aristotle already distinguished: Axioms apply generally; hypotheses or definitions are more narrowly framed. In the modern era, Descartes developed this into his famous demand for indubitable principles, as in his statement “I think, therefore I am.” Kant also took up the topic by showing that there are principles we can grasp only through reason itself. The core point is: No thinking proceeds without a starting point. One cannot justify everything infinitely, otherwise one would never reach a result. Every system - mathematics, natural science or theology - therefore needs axioms or first principles. This means: When we speak about truth, we must first honestly ask: What axiom, what first principle underlies my thinking? It is precisely at this point that it is decided whether a worldview is sound or collapses upon itself.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 15

18 Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons”, in: The New York Review of Books, 9 January 1997, 31. Review of Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. English original: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. [...] Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 18

24 Cf. Herman Ridderbos, Begründung des Glaubens. Heilsgeschichte und Heilige Schrift, trans. Joachim Guhrt and Ron Kubsch, 1st ed., Bad Oeynhausen: Verbum Medien 2025, p. 47. The Reformers spoke of the autopistia of Scripture (literally: “self-credibility”). By this they meant: The Bible brings its authority with it rather than acquiring it externally. It is credible because it is God's Word, rather than because the church “authorizes” it. This view stood in clear contrast to Roman Catholic teaching, which declared the Bible authoritative because the church had recognized it as such. Reformers such as Calvin, by contrast, emphasized: The Bible bears witness to itself as God's Word. This self-witness becomes effective for people, however, only when the Holy Spirit opens their inner eyes (testimonium Spiritus Sancti), so that they recognize the divine light in Scripture. This makes clear: Scripture is objectively God's Word, and the Spirit makes this subjectively certain (“subjectively certain” = personally recognizing, being convicted and being convinced of what is objectively valid).

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 24

29 Cf. Gary DeMar (ed.), Pushing the Antithesis. The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, Powder Springs, GA: American Vision 2007, p. 277; Saskia Wendel, “Regressus ad infinitum”, in: Albert Franz, Wolfgang Baum and Karsten Kreutzer (eds.), Lexikon philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie, Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder 2007, p. 340; Thomas Harper, The Metaphysics of the School, vol. 1, London: Macmillan and Co., 1879-1884, pp. 585-586. An infinite regress of justification is the philosophical problem that every justification in turn requires a justification, which can theoretically continue endlessly. Without an ultimate ground or an unquestionable axiom, one thus enters an infinite chain of justifications that never leads to a sound foundation. Philosophy has assessed this problem in different ways: Kant, for example, distinguished between regressus (going backward into the past) and progressus (advancing into the future). In critical rationalism, infinite regress is cited in the “Münchhausen trilemma” to show that human justifications end either in circular reasoning, an infinite regress or an arbitrary stopping point. The scholastic tradition, by contrast, emphasized that such an endless procedure can make sense only if anchored in an ultimate ground, that is, in God himself. In the apologetic perspective of Bahnsen and Van Til, infinite regress is understood as evidence that without a divine axiom - God's revelation - there is no possibility of meaningfully justifying knowledge: Only when one stops at God as the absolute origin is the regress broken and knowledge made possible.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 29

31 Cf. Wayne Grudem, Biblische Dogmatik. Eine Einführung in die Systematische Theologie, trans. Volker Jordan, vol. 29, Theologisches Lehr- und Studienmaterial des Martin Bucer Seminars, Bonn/Hamburg: VKW; arche-medien 2013, p. 729; D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Gott der Heilige Geist, trans. Volker Jordan, 3rd ed., Friedberg: 3L Verlag 2016, p. 37; Ralf Mühe, Das Johannes-Evangelium, 2nd ed., Hauskreiswelt, Marienheide: BLB 2020, p. 7. John 1,9 (“the true light that enlightens every person”) is much discussed in theology. In apologetics conscious of presuppositions, the verse is understood as a reference to Christ's universal activity rather than universal salvation. The “light” is interpreted as a kind of basic knowledge God gives every person - an awareness of truth, morality and meaning. Grudem speaks here of a work of common grace that enables unbelievers too to act morally or grasp truth in an initial way. Lloyd-Jones emphasizes that this “light” is connected with the Holy Spirit's work in the conscience: Even the non-Christian knows good and evil deep within, because God has addressed his heart. In his commentary on John, Ralf Mühe points out that Christ himself is the source of this light given to all people. This verse is therefore important in apologetics because it shows: Every person already lives within the sphere of influence of divine truth. Anyone who denies God thus does so in resistance to a light he actually knows, rather than in complete ignorance.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 31

34 Cf. Klaus Müller, “Grund (G.) / Kausalität (K.) / Ursache - Wirkung (UW.)”, in: Albert Franz, Wolfgang Baum and Karsten Kreutzer (eds.), Lexikon philosophischer Grundbegriffe der Theologie, Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder 2007, p. 183; Harald Wagner, Dogmatik, vol. 18, Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer 2003, p. 432. Hume examined how we arrive at the assumption of cause and effect. His conclusion: We can never perceive a “necessary connection,” but only a sequence of events. Example: We see one billiard ball strike another and the latter move. Yet what we observe is only a temporal sequence - not the “force” or “necessity” that makes the second event necessarily follow from the first. For Hume, “causality” is therefore a habitual judgment of the human mind rather than an objective principle in reality: Because we regularly see the same sequences, we expect them in the future too. Experience thus supplies regularities at most, but no necessity. Hume thereby asks whether experience can support and justify itself as a source of knowledge. Precisely here the limit of empiricism becomes apparent: If experience supplies only sequences but no necessity, it lacks the foundation to ground general truths or natural laws with certainty.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 34

36 Cf. Herbert Vorgrimler, “Nihilismus”, in: Neues Theologisches Wörterbuch, Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder 2008, pp. 459-460; Michael Gropheim, “Nihilismus”, in: Hans Dieter Betz et al. (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003, p. 320; R. C. Sproul, Gibt es Gott?, ed. Florian Gostner, trans. Katie Domke, 1st ed., Fragen zum christlichen Glauben, Bad Oeynhausen: Verbum Medien 2022, p. 70. Nihilism means an attitude that denies meaning, truth and universally valid values. The word comes from Latin nihil = “nothing.” It describes the conviction that all standards, rules and goals in life have lost their validity, leaving a feeling of emptiness and meaninglessness. Historically, the term first appeared as an accusation against idealism (a philosophical movement that placed ideas and thinking above visible reality). Later there were various forms of nihilism, for example in Romanticism (an artistic and literary movement of the 19th century) or in Friedrich Nietzsche, who understood nihilism as the destruction of “otherworldly illusions” (that is, the rejection of supernatural hopes). The philosopher Max Stirner went further still and rejected every kind of external bond or authority (“determination by others”). Today nihilism is often understood as the opposite of theism, the conviction that a personal God exists. For the nihilist, by contrast: Without God, human life has no ultimate meaning.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 36

37 Cf. Johann Figl et al., “Offenbarung”, in: Hans Dieter Betz et al. (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003, p. 462; Norman L. Geisler / Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam. The Crescent in Light of the Cross, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books 2002, p. 103; Friedhelm Jung, Glaube kompakt. Grundzüge biblischer Dogmatik, 4th, revised and expanded ed., Bornheim/Bonn: Lichtzeichen Verlag 2018, p. 11. According to Islamic understanding, the Quran is God's final and perfect revelation (al-wahy), which Muhammad is said to have received through inspiration. It is considered a reflection of a heavenly original book, revealed piece by piece, and is regarded as a comprehensive code of life and conduct. Muslims understand it simultaneously as confirmation and perfection of earlier scriptures, restoring the “eternal truth of Allah” and clarifying disputes of past religions. Unlike the Bible, which arose over many centuries through various human authors under divine inspiration, Islam sees the Quran as a completed book existing in heaven, which Muhammad merely received through dictation.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 37

38 Cf. J. V. Fesko, Reforming Apologetics. Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, a Division of Baker Publishing Group 2019, p. 112; Rousas John Rushdoony, By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius Van Til, Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books 1995, p. 145; John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til. An Analysis of His Thought, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing 1995, p. 429. Cornelius Van Til emphasizes that the Bible authenticates itself rather than first becoming credible through external proofs or church authority. By this he means: Scripture is the highest principle and necessary prerequisite for all true knowledge. It is God's infallible Word rather than one text among many. It is therefore the “light” through which all other facts must be understood. Without a God-inspired Scripture, there would be no absolute God interpreting our reality for us, and without God every human interpretation would be merely uncertain and fragmentary. Van Til also highlights the role of the Holy Spirit: Only he convinces the human heart of the Bible's divine authority (testimonium Spiritus Sancti = testimony of the Holy Spirit). Here: The Bible cannot be separated from Christ; rather, it is Christ's own testimony about himself. This means its authority need not be proved externally - it rests solely on God's self-revelation and is acknowledged by man in faith.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 38

39 Cf. Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam. The Crescent in Light of the Cross, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books 2002, pp. 139-141, 147-148. The authors show that Islamic voluntarism understands God above all as absolute will. In this model, morality is exclusively the result of God's willing rather than an expression of his character: Good is what God wills - not because he is good. God's action thus ultimately becomes conceivable as arbitrary, so that he could also command cruel or unjust things without contradicting himself. This view is rooted in a radical emphasis on unity (Tawḥīd) that excludes all plurality in God and is strongly shaped by Neoplatonic influences. Attempts by Muslim theologians to solve the problem by locating opposites solely in God's will rather than in his being remain unsatisfactory. For action always expresses being. This relativizes God's goodness and also makes the question of salvation and human responsibility extremely complicated.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 39

40 Cf. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, A Theology of Lordship, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing 1987, p. 71; William Dennison et al., In Defense of the Eschaton. Essays in Reformed Apologetics, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock 2015; J. V. Fesko, Reforming Apologetics. Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, a Division of Baker Publishing Group 2019, p. 108; Linda Gottschalk, “Van Til, Cornelius”, in: The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity, Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers 2008, p. 489. Cornelius Van Til rejects the notion of so-called “brute facts,” the idea that there are neutral data requiring no interpretation. For him: Every fact is already interpreted by God before man perceives it. All human knowledge is therefore also necessarily interpretation. Anyone claiming to observe purely objectively or without value judgments overlooks that he himself works with tacit presuppositions - his “lens.” Van Til therefore criticizes the idea of completely neutral science. In his view, it can never lead to the biblical God unless it breaks its own principles. Instead, he calls for starting from God's revelation. Only if one takes the Bible and particularly the Trinity as the starting point can logic, morality, meaning and reality be correctly understood. For Van Til this means: Apologetics is thinking God's thoughts after him and seeing the world from his perspective, rather than an attempt to collect facts neutrally.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 40

43 Cf. John MacArthur Jr. et al., Think Biblically! Recovering a Christian Worldview, Wheaton, IL: Crossway 2003, p. 47; Eta Linnemann, Bibelkritik auf dem Prüfstand. Wie wissenschaftlich ist die „wissenschaftliche Theologie“?, revised ed., Nuremberg: VTR 2012, p. 8; Gary DeMar (ed.), Pushing the Antithesis. The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, Powder Springs, GA: American Vision 2007, p. 25; John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. A Theology of Lordship, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing 1987, p. 164; J. P. Moreland, “How Theistic Evolution Kicks Christianity out of the Plausibility Structure and Robs Christians of Confidence That the Bible Is a Source of Knowledge”, in: J. P. Moreland et al. (eds.), Theistic Evolution. A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, Wheaton, IL: Crossway 2017, p. 646. These authors agree in emphasizing that apologetics must be understood as a spiritual conflict between incompatible worldviews rather than practiced on supposedly neutral ground (cf. 2Cor 10,4-5). Unbelief is not neutral, and neither may the defense of faith be conducted neutrally. Bahnsen, for example, stresses that the Bible must be established as the foundation, since there is no firm ground without God's Word. Linnemann and Moreland also criticize both historical-critical biblical scholarship and theistic evolution for placing central biblical truths outside the realm of rational knowledge and thus degrading them to mere noncognitive beliefs.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 43

45 Cf. Oshea Davis, The Undefeatable Worldview, no place of publication 2015, pp. 33-34. Davis explains the transcendental argument (TAG) as showing the fundamental prerequisite of all thought rather than merely being another proof alongside others. Classical arguments attempt to show that God probably exists or that evidence points to him. The TAG goes deeper: It asks what conditions must be fulfilled for us to speak of “truth,” “logic” or “morality” at all. The answer: Only the God of the Bible offers a sound foundation for this. For as soon as an unbeliever argues logically, makes moral judgments or conducts scientific research, he already presupposes principles (logic, order, binding obligation) that find no support in his own worldview. He thus actually uses tools that make sense only within the biblical worldview. Davis therefore emphasizes that the TAG shows all other worldviews to be impossible as well as false: They refute themselves because they could not even be formulated without biblical presuppositions. The TAG thus shows that the Christian faith is necessary as well as true - the condition for thought, language and knowledge being possible at all.

↩ Back to the passage at footnote 45

About the author

Author portrait from the book edition. You can find current information on the team page.

Josef Dražil studied theology at Bibelschule Brake in Lemgo, where he completed his bachelor's degree in 2011. He is currently pursuing his master's in theology at Martin Bucer Seminary, focusing on apologetics. Professionally, he works as an evangelist with the mission organization Bruderhand and engages in apologetics through the CHRISTOlogisch platform.

With In the beginning was the Axiom, he seeks to introduce an approach to apologetics that has so far been little known in the German-speaking world. He is convinced that this biblical approach is unique in its force: It teaches people to think more highly of God - as He has revealed himself in Scripture - and equips them to think biblically, including in the defense of faith. The aim of his work is to defend God's Word in its authority so that God is honored, the church built up and outsiders led to faith. Alongside his writing, he hosts the weekly YouTube livestream Logik des Glaubens, offers seminars and workshops on apologetics and evangelism, and is regularly active in public conversations and evangelistic outreach in major German cities.

Further information and contact

https://linktr.ee/christologisch

Apologetics coach for this handbook

https://www.christologisch.de/apologetik/apologetikcoach/

Publication details

4th, corrected edition 2026

Typesetting and design: Author Production and publisher: Independently published ISBN: 9798275117110

Bible quotations: Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible quotations are from the Elberfelder Bible 1927. God's name is consistently rendered as YHWH throughout the book.

Third-party quotations: All quotations used are properly documented. Rights belong to the respective authors and publishers.

Disclaimer: The author assumes no responsibility for the content of external links. The operators of linked pages are solely responsible for their content.