ABSTRACT
This chapter introduces modernist and postmodernist challenges to the doctrine of revelation and natural theology, the classical and non-classical responses to the challenges, and the problems with non-classical approaches. It is shown that the non-classical methodologies of (Barthian) Radical Fideism and Frame’s Presuppositionalism commit the fallacy of begging the question and are inconsistent with Scripture to which they often appeal. In particular, various Scriptural passages affirm the use of external evidences (e.g., extra-Biblical data) to test claims of divine revelation (e.g., to determine if a prophet’s prophecies fail to come to pass) in order to recognize genuine divine revelation (Deut 18:21–22, Isa 44:6–8). In addition, it is demonstrated that Radical Fideism, Frame’s Presuppositionalism, and Reformed Epistemology (by itself) do not adequately answer why should people think that their Christian claim is true while other contradictory religious claims are false. This chapter concludes by advocating the classical approach as the way forward.
