Presuppositional Analysis of
Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: Holy Scripture—The Cognitive Foundation of Theology
by Richard A. Muller
1. Introduction to the Presuppositional Method
A presuppositional reading of Richard A. Muller’s Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (Volume 2 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics) involves approaching his historical-theological work with the conviction that God’s self-attesting revelation in Scripture is the ultimate authority for all knowledge. In the Reformed and Van Tilian tradition, presuppositional apologetics begins by affirming that there can be no genuinely neutral ground between believer and unbeliever. While Muller’s project is primarily historical rather than dogmatic or polemical, his discussion of how Reformed orthodoxy formulated Scripture as a principium cognoscendi (a foundation for knowing) resonates with many core presuppositional themes.
God’s Self-Attesting Revelation
Presuppositional apologetics insists that we must ground all reasoning in the sovereign, triune God who speaks in Scripture. Muller’s text underscores how the Reformed orthodox identified Scripture not merely as “inspired” but as the very principium of theology: a divine cognitive foundation. He surveys medieval scholastic roots—showing how Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and others appealed to an inspired Bible—and traces how the Reformation sharpened this into “Scripture alone” as the controlling authority. From a Bahnsen-esque vantage point, Scripture’s self-attesting character appears throughout the historical developments Muller documents: the confessional statements of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries frequently declared that the Bible, as God’s very Word, confirms itself and cannot be judged by a supposedly neutral external standard.
Myth of Neutrality
One recurring motif in Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology is that no theologian—Medieval, Reformation-era, or from the orthodoxy period—approached the Bible from a purely “blank slate.” Muller explains how exegetes like Nicholas of Lyra, Thomas Aquinas, and later the Reformed scholastics employed interpretive traditions that shaped their approach to the text. He shows how the Reformation’s claim of sola Scriptura was no rejection of all tradition but rather a refinement of prior medieval assumptions, even as it reoriented Christian thought to the primacy of biblical authority. Presuppositionalism similarly rejects the notion that one can bracket all bias to meet the skeptic on “neutral” ground. Rather, the Reformed orthodox recognized that Scripture itself stands as the ultimate criterion—an assumption they refused to surrender, which Muller shows them systematically defending in theological prolegomena.
Impossibility of the Contrary
Van Til’s phrase “impossibility of the contrary” aims to demonstrate that apart from Scripture’s revelational epistemology, meaning, logic, and morality collapse. Muller’s historical analysis reveals the same bedrock assumption in the Reformed orthodox: they contended that natural reason, unaided by God’s self-revelation, cannot secure knowledge of divine truths. At best, reason can yield partial or corrupted accounts, so that any attempt to do theology without biblical revelation was, in principle, doomed. While Muller’s primary aim is not a direct polemic against unbelief, his chronicle of the development of a robust doctrine of Scripture implicitly aligns with presuppositional convictions: if Scripture were not God’s own self-attesting speech, theology would lack the certainty that the Reformed orthodox claimed for it.
In sum, Muller’s historical research interacts with the same bedrock concerns that presuppositionalism raises: Scripture, not human neutrality, is the chief authority, and all methods—whether exegetical or theological—must presuppose the triune God’s revealed Word.
2. Identifying the Author’s Presuppositions
Although Muller’s project is historical, every historian of theology inevitably operates with certain worldview assumptions. We can glean his presuppositions from the text:
A. View of Scripture and Divine Revelation
Muller treats Scripture as a historically discernible entity: a canon that Reformed scholastics recognized as the “cognitive foundation” of all theological endeavor. He emphasizes continuity and development rather than attributing radical novelty to the Reformation. In doing so, he presupposes that the Bible was central in both medieval scholastic theology and Reformed dogmatics. While not writing a confessional or dogmatic treatise, Muller’s analysis of seventeenth-century Reformed scholastics shows he appreciates their high view of biblical inspiration. He does not present Scripture as a mere historical artifact. Instead, he demonstrates how these theologians insisted on Scripture’s divine origin and spiritual authority. Hence, Muller’s vantage point is sympathetic: he neither dismisses the confessions’ strong claims to biblical infallibility nor suggests a neutral vantage external to the text.
B. Role of the Church, Confessions, and Historical Theology
Muller’s research reveals a deep acquaintance with the confessions (e.g., Westminster, Helvetic, Belgic) and major theologians who shaped them (Zanchi, Turretin, Voetius). While he recognizes the Reformed orthodox gave great weight to ecclesiastical statements, he also shows how they consistently attributed a subordinate status to tradition relative to the primacy of Scripture. In so doing, Muller acknowledges the integrated role of confessions for elucidating the meaning of Scripture. His approach upholds the notion that the church recognizes biblical authority rather than granting it.
C. Starting Point: God’s Sovereignty vs. Human Autonomy
Throughout Holy Scripture, Muller’s framing indicates that the Reformed orthodox did not treat Scripture as a hypothesis to be verified by external, autonomous reason. Instead, they started with the assumption that Scripture is the divine Word. For instance, Muller’s discussion of the older medieval claim that “God is the principal author of Scripture, man is the instrument” shows how that principle carried forward into Reformed scholastic prolegomena. Indeed, he stresses that a robust notion of Scripture as “principium cognoscendi” gave theology a secure foundation. While Muller himself is not writing as a presuppositional apologist, he documents how these theologians placed God’s revelation above all human autonomy as the supreme starting point.
D. Apologetic Aims: Proof or Probability?
Muller does not primarily address apologetic “proofs,” but his historical account of the Reformed scholastics underscores that they were not content to argue for the Bible’s “probable truth.” Rather, they insisted that Scripture had self-authenticating certainty. For them, the Bible was the authoritative norm because it is God’s own Word. They might use “evidences of divinity” (intrinsic and extrinsic) as confirmatory, but the final ground was always the Holy Spirit’s witness and the text’s inherent divine character. Muller’s exposition shows that the Reformed orthodox consistently saw Scripture as absolutely authoritative, not merely probable—a hallmark of a transcendent, God-given foundation.
3. Presuppositional Critique
From a Van Til/Bahnsen perspective, we can subject Muller’s own presentation, as well as the theology he describes, to a two-step presuppositional critique.
A. Two-Step Method (Proverbs 26:4–5)
“Don’t Answer the Fool According to His Folly”
Muller’s account illuminates how post-Reformation theologians refused to cede Scripture’s authority in debate with Roman Catholic or Socinian opponents. They did not adopt the posture of neutrality—“Sure, let’s evaluate Scripture by your standards.” Instead, they held fast to the biblical framework: Scripture, as principium, cannot be downgraded to a mere hypothesis. Muller shows them as heirs of medieval scholasticism who refined the notion that Scripture is foundational, not beholden to external adjudication by an alleged “neutral reason.”“Answer the Fool According to His Folly”
At the same time, the Reformed orthodox performed internal critiques on competing positions. Muller highlights controversies over the Apocrypha with Roman Catholics, or over reason with Socinians, showing how the orthodox exposed the internal inconsistencies within those rival systems. By setting those alternative views on their own grounds and driving them to logical conclusions, they forced the opposing side to see that, without full submission to biblical revelation, the system leads to partial truths or contradictions.
Though Muller’s objective is descriptive, his narrative highlights how the Reformed orthodox effectively performed these two methodological steps. They never relinquished the absolute authority of Scripture, and they demonstrated the shortcomings of rival theological foundations.
B. Impossibility of the Contrary
Muller devotes considerable space to how Reformed theology insisted that theology must begin with God’s Word, because natural reason cannot ascend to a saving knowledge of God on its own. One sees a presuppositional logic: only if God discloses Himself in Scripture can theology remain stable and certain. If Scripture is simply an optional starting point, the entire theological edifice teeters on the subjective whim of human speculation. Repeatedly, Muller shows how Reformed divines taught that the contrary position—that we can do theology from purely natural premises—renders Christian doctrine ultimately ungrounded. This is tantamount to the Van Tilian point that if we reject God’s revealed Word as the foundation, meaning and certainty vanish.
C. Transcendental Challenge
In recounting the historical developments, Muller mentions controversies over textual criticism, the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek autographs, and the Apocrypha. The Reformed orthodox met these challenges by positing a robust scriptural foundation, applying a “transcendental” dimension: if Scripture is not what it claims to be, then the entire Christian worldview breaks down. For example, Turretin’s rigorous approach to textual variants was guided by the conviction that God had preserved His Word in the authentic Hebrew and Greek traditions. Muller records that while textual difficulties exist, the Reformed scholastics contended that the overarching integrity of the biblical text was unassailable. This demonstrates how they turned the question back upon the skeptic or the Roman Catholic disputant, effectively asking: “How do you even establish consistent theological truth without the prior acceptance of Scripture’s authority?” That approach is precisely the essence of a presuppositional, transcendental argument.
4. Theological and Practical Consequences
Authority of God’s Word vs. Autonomy of Man
Muller’s research verifies that, from the late medieval period onward, there were intense debates on whether the church possessed co-equal authority with Scripture or whether Scripture stands over the church. The Reformed orthodox insisted that Scripture is the final judge, with church tradition serving a ministerial role. Applied presuppositionally, their stance implies that any attempt to treat Scripture and tradition as symmetrical authorities undercuts Scripture’s unique, divine voice. Muller underscores the Reformed conviction that Scripture’s authority is absolute because it is God’s speech—any competing “authority” claims must bow to it.
Role of the Holy Spirit and Regeneration
Although Muller’s text is primarily historical, the Reformed orthodox he examines frequently insisted that true knowledge of Scripture is not merely intellectual but also supernatural, wrought by the Spirit. They recognized that “intellectual assent” alone does not bring saving faith. In a presuppositional framework, hearts must be changed for men to abandon autonomous preconceptions and embrace Scripture’s authority. Muller shows that the Reformed scholastics, building on Calvin’s emphasis on the testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti, taught that Scripture authenticates itself, and the Spirit grants believers the ability to see its truth. Thus, while their dogmatics included sophisticated discussions of textual veracity and external evidences, they always anchored final conviction in the Spirit’s inward work.
Worship and Intellectual Life
The Reformed orthodox tradition that Muller chronicles regarded studying Scripture as part of devotion to God. Their theology was doxological in orientation, grounded in the premise that reverence for God’s Word is a form of worship. This resonates with presuppositional apologetics: one’s intellectual labor must yield obedience to Christ. Muller’s thorough exposition of the biblical foundation for theology shows that these theologians sought to “take every thought captive” (2 Cor. 10:5). Far from treating Scripture as a distant text for purely academic speculation, they read it as God’s living Word, shaping all Christian life.
Polemic Aims: Humility and Gentleness
Muller’s historical narrative likewise highlights how, despite their strong convictions, many Reformed scholastics tempered polemics with pastoral concern. Their texts often had an irenic spirit when dealing with debates inside Protestantism (e.g., federal theology) and with Roman Catholic interlocutors. They strove to expose error without descending into rancor. In a presuppositional sense, they recognized that biblical confrontation must also be matched by graciousness, reflecting 1 Peter 3:15’s call to gentleness and reverence. Thus, Muller’s review frequently shows an apologetic that balanced boldness with humility.
5. Conclusion: A Clash of Worldviews
Summary of the Author’s Presuppositional (or Non-Presuppositional) Coherence
While not an apologetics manual, Muller’s work meticulously clarifies how early modern Reformed theology placed Scripture at the center of its worldview, refusing to subordinate it to autonomous reason or church tradition. Indeed, a presuppositional approach that denies neutrality and insists on the necessity of God’s special revelation for knowledge finds ample historical corroboration in Muller’s documentation of Reformed scholastics. They argued that Scripture is the principium cognoscendi of theology—a vantage thoroughly in step with presuppositional commitments. Muller’s emphasis on intellectual continuity from medieval to Reformed eras also counters caricatures that the Reformation introduced a novel “biblicism” ex nihilo. Instead, it sharpened existing threads from medieval scholasticism into a more theologically robust and explicitly self-attesting doctrine of Scripture.
Key Observations
- Strong High View of Scripture: As Muller notes, both medieval scholastics (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent) and Reformed orthodox (Turretin, Voetius) held Scripture as divinely inspired and infallible. The Reformed tradition, especially, insisted on a self-authenticating Word that stands supreme in the theological enterprise.
- Explicit Rejection of Neutrality: The orthodoxy period recognized no impartial vantage point above Scripture. Even text-critical endeavors were pursued with an unwavering conviction about Scripture’s divine origin.
- Transcendental Logic: Although not couched in Van Til’s terms, the Reformed scholastics’ method—demanding that all reason conform to God’s revelation—reflects a robust presuppositional orientation that unpacks the “impossibility of the contrary.”
Final Reflection / Exhortation
Richard A. Muller’s second volume in the Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics series helps modern readers see that the Reformed orthodox’s high view of Scripture was more than an abstract principle. It was central to their entire theological system. They consistently taught that because the triune God speaks in Scripture, no higher standard stands above it. Their approach aligns with Van Til’s emphasis on Scripture’s necessity and sufficiency as the bedrock that confers rational coherence upon Christian theology.
Despite being a historical treatise, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology encourages the same fundamental submission to Christ’s lordship that a presuppositional apologetic demands. By examining centuries of debate on canon, authority, and interpretation, Muller shows that the Christian tradition, at its best, refused to put God “in the dock.” The Reformed orthodox would not subject Scripture to the bar of human autonomy but labored instead to articulate how God’s Word, from the outset, shapes and critiques every human argument. Muller’s thorough historical work quietly testifies to the abiding truth of the Reformed conviction: every fact, every theological concept, is to be interpreted in light of God’s inscripturated revelation.
This historical vantage warns us against adopting any posture that treats Scripture as one “hypothesis” among many. To do so is to place the creature’s reason above the Creator’s. Instead, we must continue the Reformed orthodox’s legacy of standing unapologetically on Scripture’s self-authenticating divine voice. That is the heart of a truly biblical, presuppositional approach.
