Apologia Radio Ep. 513: Do We Even Need the Bible? Responding To Stephen Wolfe

Host: Jeff Durbin (with Luke the Bear & Zach Conover)
Date: February 28, 2025

Overview:

This episode dives into the foundational role of the Bible and revelational epistemology in establishing justice, law, and engaging with culture, particularly responding to Stephen Wolfe's criticisms of Theonomy and the relevance of worldview. The hosts contrast the sufficiency of general revelation/natural law versus special revelation (Scripture), emphasize the indispensability of Christian presuppositions for public life, and refute misunderstandings and critiques posed by Wolfe and other natural law advocates. The episode also demonstrates through concrete examples (abortion, climate change, government, treaties) how biblical authority is essential and irreducible in all domains.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Apologia’s Legislative Engagement and the Foundations of Christian Political Action

[03:45–07:55] Jeff shares their ongoing, hands-on involvement in bills of abolition across the US, highlighting the current historic momentum in Georgia, citing over 20% of the House as co-sponsors.
- Major difference from the "pro-life" establishment: Apologia centers their case on the authority of God and the gospel, not just on biological or general revelation arguments.
- The pro-life movement often appeals to "common ground" (biology, general revelation) rather than naming Christ and calling for repentance.

Jeff [07:58]: "The pro-life establishment has fought this fight saying, if we could just convince people biologically that it's part of our species, then they'll agree with us. ... The problem is, it goes beyond that. The issue is sin and rebellion against God."

2. Limits of Natural Law and General Revelation in the Public Square

[09:40–14:56] The hosts stress that biological and general revelation arguments fail to persuade a culture bent on autonomy; the world’s issue is not ignorance of facts (e.g., the humanity of the unborn) but rebellion against God.
The noetic effects of sin (sin’s effect on the mind) lead people to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, no matter how obvious it is.

Jeff [16:21]: "General revelation gets through. Scripture says that general revelation is so clear, it gets through so clearly that people know God and he has shown it to them... But the problem is, general revelation... is immediately met with the wall of the rebellious heart. And so that knowledge gets through, but it's suppressed by the rebel, and they war against it sinfully."

3. Necessity of Special Revelation (Scripture) in Law and Justice

[14:52–21:59] Apologia's legislative approach begins with God’s Word as the authority for justice, law, and morality, refusing to compromise with neutral or secular arguments.
They critique the illusion of "secular" neutrality and insist every public question is ultimately theological.

Luke [14:55]: "Appealing to Scripture is the principal starting point."

The show discusses the limitations of natural law as a grounding for knowledge and ethics—without special revelation, one cannot give meaningful justification for any “ought.”

Jeff [25:41]: "If you say the Word of God is not the grounding, if it's not the central reference point for knowledge, certainty, and truth... how do you avoid the obvious that you have to eventually get to the point of saying, thus saith the Lord...?"

4. Worldview & Presuppositional Engagement—Christian Ground is Common Ground

[26:08–27:04] Drawing upon Van Til and Bonson, the team explains that there is "common ground" only because it’s all God's ground. Non-Christian consistency (e.g., atheists who defend life) borrows from Christian capital.

Luke [26:26]: "There are some people who don't share our convictions that believe that preserving the sanctity of human life is a right and moral thing to do... However, it is not enough."

Atheist pro-lifers, for instance, cannot ground their moral oughts apart from the Christian worldview.

Jeff [27:04]: "If you don't have Christian presuppositions and a Christian worldview, how do you engage in that meaningfully?"

5. Responding Directly to Stephen Wolfe’s Critiques

a) "Climate Change is not a Theological Question"

[30:13–36:11] Wolfe’s claim is critiqued:
- Even the ability to care about the environment presupposes theological underpinnings (human value, creation with purpose, dominion, stewardship).
- Scientific investigation, meaning, and motivation require Christian presuppositions (uniformity of nature, ability of reason, existence of truth).

Jeff [33:37]: "Climate change is not a theological question, really? ... With an atheist worldview... why ought I to care [about climate change] if it's not a theological question?"

Apart from the Christian worldview, scientific reasoning, logic, and induction cannot be justified; famous atheists like Dawkins and Russell admit this.

b) Misunderstanding (or Ignorance) of Theonomy & Political Engagement

[77:53–94:33] Wolfe claims theonomists do not or cannot engage in politics meaningfully; Jeff and team ridicule this as an "embarrassing" misunderstanding, citing copious involvement in legislative work and political theory by theonomists historically and currently.
They recommend Wolfe read foundational theonomic literature (Rushdoony, North, Bonson, etc.) before making sweeping critiques.

Jeff [11:54]: "His understanding of theonomy is abysmal... It's abundantly obvious that he hasn't [engaged with the field]."

Jeff [79:35]: "I would be willing to bet everything that I own that between Luke and I and our team, we've spent more time behind closed doors and at dinner with politicians... than you probably ever will."

c) On Treaties, Law, and International Relations

[80:58–88:56] Wolfe wonders how theonomists could handle concepts such as treaties and international law.
Jeff points to historic Christian contributions (Just War theory, treaty logic from biblical principles), and affirms that a biblical framework, not a merely natural law perspective, is both necessary and sufficient.

Jeff [81:35]: "How do you get a meaningful appeal to treaties as obligations, as moral obligations... apart from the revelation of God where God says you shall not lie, that you have to be like God who cannot lie...?"

d) Mischaracterization of Postmillennial Thought

[94:33–95:33] Wolfe alleges that postmillennialists downplay political realities since “everyone will just be Christians”—the team calls this a straw man.

Jeff [95:33]: "That was bad. Nope, nope, no, James would not say that at all. That's just...a straw man."

6. Definitions & Theological Clarifications

[47:28–54:45] Theonomist: One who holds that God's law is the standard for justice, government, and ethics.
Thomism: Approach rooted in Thomas Aquinas; often prioritizes man's reason and divides secular (earthly) and sacred (heavenly) spheres—contrasted here with the Reformation view that insists all of life is under Christ.
Presuppositionalism is unpacked as a method arguing the precondition of intelligibility is the truth of Christianity.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

Jeff [07:58]: "The problem is, is that it goes beyond that. The issue is sin and rebellion against God. Those who hate me love death."
Jeff [16:21]: "General revelation gets through... but it is immediately met with the wall of the rebellious heart."
Luke [26:26]: "There are some people who don't share our convictions that believe that preserving the sanctity of human life is a right and moral thing... However, it is not enough."
Jeff [33:37]: "Climate change is not a theological question, really? ... With an atheist worldview... why ought I to care...?"
Jeff [54:56]: "Where I think Thomas [Aquinas] falls off is epistemologically, where's the grounding for truth and knowledge?"
Luke [64:56]: "What's the limiting principle? And should it be carried out by a mob? Should it just be personal retaliation? ... Where do we get that idea that there needs to be an office bearing sword-bearer who is commissioned by God to mete out these punishments? ... It's unavoidable."
Jeff [81:35]: "Theonomy matters here in this question of treaties and obligations and covenants. It's a matter of being like God. God says you make a promise, you keep your promise."
Jeff [95:33]: "No, a theonomist would not say all those political questions just go away because of postmillennialism... The law itself is a part of Messiah's kingdom as he saves the world and puts all of his enemies under his feet."
Jeff [55:49]: "Do we even need the Bible? ... They will create distinctions and spheres that I do not believe are biblical or coherent. ... The Bible makes it very clear that Christ has authority over all things."

Memorable Moments

[31:43–36:11] The hosts sarcastically describe "climate change as not a theological question," illustrating that care for the environment is meaningless without theological backing, lampooning atheistic and pagan frameworks for failing to provide an "ought."
[38:32–43:42] Rapid-fire apologetic on why science, reason, and logic cannot be sustained apart from Christian theism, with references to Dawkins, Will Provine, and Bertrand Russell.
[79:22] Jeff, tongue-in-cheek: "This whole question of theonomy and separating from politics is just meaningless to us."
[94:05] Offer to send Wolfe a box of theonomic literature as “a gift from us. ... Just say the word.”

Concluding Thoughts

Scripture is not an optional theological add-on—it is the principium (foundational reference point) for knowledge, meaning, and justice.
Natural law and general revelation are real and valuable but insufficient due to sin; only special revelation (the Bible) provides clarity, objectivity, and authority needed for law, justice, and public engagement.
Dismissing worldview as “simplistic” or “reactionary” betrays a misunderstanding of historic reformed and Christian thought.
Political engagement, science, and even treatymaking are inevitably theological endeavors.
Theonomists, contrary to Wolfe’s claims, are intensely involved in public life and have a robust tradition of intellectual engagement in both theory and practice.

Apologia Radio Ep. 513: Do We Even Need the Bible? Responding To Stephen Wolfe

Host: Jeff Durbin (with Luke the Bear & Zach Conover)
Date: February 28, 2025

Overview:

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Apologia’s Legislative Engagement and the Foundations of Christian Political Action

[03:45–07:55] Jeff shares their ongoing, hands-on involvement in bills of abolition across the US, highlighting the current historic momentum in Georgia, citing over 20% of the House as co-sponsors.
- Major difference from the "pro-life" establishment: Apologia centers their case on the authority of God and the gospel, not just on biological or general revelation arguments.
- The pro-life movement often appeals to "common ground" (biology, general revelation) rather than naming Christ and calling for repentance.

Jeff [07:58]: "The pro-life establishment has fought this fight saying, if we could just convince people biologically that it's part of our species, then they'll agree with us. ... The problem is, it goes beyond that. The issue is sin and rebellion against God."

2. Limits of Natural Law and General Revelation in the Public Square

[09:40–14:56] The hosts stress that biological and general revelation arguments fail to persuade a culture bent on autonomy; the world’s issue is not ignorance of facts (e.g., the humanity of the unborn) but rebellion against God.
The noetic effects of sin (sin’s effect on the mind) lead people to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, no matter how obvious it is.

Jeff [16:21]: "General revelation gets through. Scripture says that general revelation is so clear, it gets through so clearly that people know God and he has shown it to them... But the problem is, general revelation... is immediately met with the wall of the rebellious heart. And so that knowledge gets through, but it's suppressed by the rebel, and they war against it sinfully."

3. Necessity of Special Revelation (Scripture) in Law and Justice

[14:52–21:59] Apologia's legislative approach begins with God’s Word as the authority for justice, law, and morality, refusing to compromise with neutral or secular arguments.
They critique the illusion of "secular" neutrality and insist every public question is ultimately theological.

Luke [14:55]: "Appealing to Scripture is the principal starting point."

The show discusses the limitations of natural law as a grounding for knowledge and ethics—without special revelation, one cannot give meaningful justification for any “ought.”

Jeff [25:41]: "If you say the Word of God is not the grounding, if it's not the central reference point for knowledge, certainty, and truth... how do you avoid the obvious that you have to eventually get to the point of saying, thus saith the Lord...?"

4. Worldview & Presuppositional Engagement—Christian Ground is Common Ground

[26:08–27:04] Drawing upon Van Til and Bonson, the team explains that there is "common ground" only because it’s all God's ground. Non-Christian consistency (e.g., atheists who defend life) borrows from Christian capital.

Luke [26:26]: "There are some people who don't share our convictions that believe that preserving the sanctity of human life is a right and moral thing to do... However, it is not enough."

Atheist pro-lifers, for instance, cannot ground their moral oughts apart from the Christian worldview.

Jeff [27:04]: "If you don't have Christian presuppositions and a Christian worldview, how do you engage in that meaningfully?"

5. Responding Directly to Stephen Wolfe’s Critiques

a) "Climate Change is not a Theological Question"

[30:13–36:11] Wolfe’s claim is critiqued:
- Even the ability to care about the environment presupposes theological underpinnings (human value, creation with purpose, dominion, stewardship).
- Scientific investigation, meaning, and motivation require Christian presuppositions (uniformity of nature, ability of reason, existence of truth).

Jeff [33:37]: "Climate change is not a theological question, really? ... With an atheist worldview... why ought I to care [about climate change] if it's not a theological question?"

Apart from the Christian worldview, scientific reasoning, logic, and induction cannot be justified; famous atheists like Dawkins and Russell admit this.

b) Misunderstanding (or Ignorance) of Theonomy & Political Engagement

[77:53–94:33] Wolfe claims theonomists do not or cannot engage in politics meaningfully; Jeff and team ridicule this as an "embarrassing" misunderstanding, citing copious involvement in legislative work and political theory by theonomists historically and currently.
They recommend Wolfe read foundational theonomic literature (Rushdoony, North, Bonson, etc.) before making sweeping critiques.

Jeff [11:54]: "His understanding of theonomy is abysmal... It's abundantly obvious that he hasn't [engaged with the field]."

Jeff [79:35]: "I would be willing to bet everything that I own that between Luke and I and our team, we've spent more time behind closed doors and at dinner with politicians... than you probably ever will."

c) On Treaties, Law, and International Relations

[80:58–88:56] Wolfe wonders how theonomists could handle concepts such as treaties and international law.
Jeff points to historic Christian contributions (Just War theory, treaty logic from biblical principles), and affirms that a biblical framework, not a merely natural law perspective, is both necessary and sufficient.

Jeff [81:35]: "How do you get a meaningful appeal to treaties as obligations, as moral obligations... apart from the revelation of God where God says you shall not lie, that you have to be like God who cannot lie...?"

d) Mischaracterization of Postmillennial Thought

[94:33–95:33] Wolfe alleges that postmillennialists downplay political realities since “everyone will just be Christians”—the team calls this a straw man.

Jeff [95:33]: "That was bad. Nope, nope, no, James would not say that at all. That's just...a straw man."

6. Definitions & Theological Clarifications

[47:28–54:45] Theonomist: One who holds that God's law is the standard for justice, government, and ethics.
Thomism: Approach rooted in Thomas Aquinas; often prioritizes man's reason and divides secular (earthly) and sacred (heavenly) spheres—contrasted here with the Reformation view that insists all of life is under Christ.
Presuppositionalism is unpacked as a method arguing the precondition of intelligibility is the truth of Christianity.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

Jeff [07:58]: "The problem is, is that it goes beyond that. The issue is sin and rebellion against God. Those who hate me love death."
Jeff [16:21]: "General revelation gets through... but it is immediately met with the wall of the rebellious heart."
Luke [26:26]: "There are some people who don't share our convictions that believe that preserving the sanctity of human life is a right and moral thing... However, it is not enough."
Jeff [33:37]: "Climate change is not a theological question, really? ... With an atheist worldview... why ought I to care...?"
Jeff [54:56]: "Where I think Thomas [Aquinas] falls off is epistemologically, where's the grounding for truth and knowledge?"
Luke [64:56]: "What's the limiting principle? And should it be carried out by a mob? Should it just be personal retaliation? ... Where do we get that idea that there needs to be an office bearing sword-bearer who is commissioned by God to mete out these punishments? ... It's unavoidable."
Jeff [81:35]: "Theonomy matters here in this question of treaties and obligations and covenants. It's a matter of being like God. God says you make a promise, you keep your promise."
Jeff [95:33]: "No, a theonomist would not say all those political questions just go away because of postmillennialism... The law itself is a part of Messiah's kingdom as he saves the world and puts all of his enemies under his feet."
Jeff [55:49]: "Do we even need the Bible? ... They will create distinctions and spheres that I do not believe are biblical or coherent. ... The Bible makes it very clear that Christ has authority over all things."

Memorable Moments

[31:43–36:11] The hosts sarcastically describe "climate change as not a theological question," illustrating that care for the environment is meaningless without theological backing, lampooning atheistic and pagan frameworks for failing to provide an "ought."
[38:32–43:42] Rapid-fire apologetic on why science, reason, and logic cannot be sustained apart from Christian theism, with references to Dawkins, Will Provine, and Bertrand Russell.
[79:22] Jeff, tongue-in-cheek: "This whole question of theonomy and separating from politics is just meaningless to us."
[94:05] Offer to send Wolfe a box of theonomic literature as “a gift from us. ... Just say the word.”

Concluding Thoughts

Scripture is not an optional theological add-on—it is the principium (foundational reference point) for knowledge, meaning, and justice.
Natural law and general revelation are real and valuable but insufficient due to sin; only special revelation (the Bible) provides clarity, objectivity, and authority needed for law, justice, and public engagement.
Dismissing worldview as “simplistic” or “reactionary” betrays a misunderstanding of historic reformed and Christian thought.
Political engagement, science, and even treatymaking are inevitably theological endeavors.
Theonomists, contrary to Wolfe’s claims, are intensely involved in public life and have a robust tradition of intellectual engagement in both theory and practice.

wavePod

513. Do We Even Need the Bible? Responding To Stephen Wolfe

Powered by Wave AI

Summary

Apologia Radio Ep. 513: Do We Even Need the Bible? Responding To Stephen Wolfe

Overview:

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Apologia’s Legislative Engagement and the Foundations of Christian Political Action

2. Limits of Natural Law and General Revelation in the Public Square

3. Necessity of Special Revelation (Scripture) in Law and Justice

4. Worldview & Presuppositional Engagement—Christian Ground is Common Ground

5. Responding Directly to Stephen Wolfe’s Critiques

a) "Climate Change is not a Theological Question"

b) Misunderstanding (or Ignorance) of Theonomy & Political Engagement

c) On Treaties, Law, and International Relations

d) Mischaracterization of Postmillennial Thought

6. Definitions & Theological Clarifications

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

Memorable Moments

Concluding Thoughts

Suggested Further Reading/Listening (as per Apologia):

Summary

Apologia Radio Ep. 513: Do We Even Need the Bible? Responding To Stephen Wolfe

Overview:

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Apologia’s Legislative Engagement and the Foundations of Christian Political Action

2. Limits of Natural Law and General Revelation in the Public Square

3. Necessity of Special Revelation (Scripture) in Law and Justice

4. Worldview & Presuppositional Engagement—Christian Ground is Common Ground

5. Responding Directly to Stephen Wolfe’s Critiques

a) "Climate Change is not a Theological Question"

b) Misunderstanding (or Ignorance) of Theonomy & Political Engagement

c) On Treaties, Law, and International Relations

d) Mischaracterization of Postmillennial Thought

6. Definitions & Theological Clarifications

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

Memorable Moments

Concluding Thoughts

Suggested Further Reading/Listening (as per Apologia):