# Hanniah the Prophet renders van tillian apologetics useless



## jubalsqaud (Sep 9, 2021)

Hanniah the profit renders van tillian apologetics useless.

The reason this is the case is because van tillian presuppositionalism is supposed to show the necessity of the Christian worldview.

The problem is the format of these arguments attempt to show that the triune God of scripture is true my necessity.

This is where Hanniah the prophet becomes a problem 

Hanniah is a false prophet who speaks in the name of the real guy who is mentioned in Jeremiah 28 verses 15 to 17.

Jeremiah accuses him of lying about what God told him and God subsequently executes Hanniah.

The problem here is this proves that you can actually reference and talk about the real God and also tell a false story about the real God.

Against this vantillianism is basically helpless.

For there is nothing in all the world that a Vantillian can do to stop someone from saying

"look I get that there needs to be a solution for the one in the many found in God and it can be a trinity. However I think Jesus predicted a false prophecy and therefore can't be God incarnate"

The vantillion can attempt to do several things from here but all of them fail some examples are:

1. Argue for a necessity of a messiah.
This doesn't work however because if you prove the necessity of a messiah all you've done is prove the basic format of the Jesus story you haven't actually proven that Jesus is the character that actually fulfilled the story.

2. Try to argue from the some kind of timing mechanism from the Bible like Daniel 9.

This might perhaps work against a Jew but it will not work against someone who can be more aggressive against the text.

For example a generic philosophical theist could be absolutely persuaded by a vantillion style argument regarding the one in the many while also believing that the Christian God is real .


However there's no reason to accept that because God solves the one in the many problem that nobody is lying about Moses making a bunch of laws, or that Hezekiah defeated armies, or pretty much all the bible specific content.

This generic theist can just assert he believes in
Pre-biblical revelation, which would be defined as the prerequisite knowledge for being able to read the Bible.

If you did not know how to read or speak you couldn't gain the knowledge of Moses.

Such a man would basically have a minimal theism devoid of third party prophets and angelic messengers.

3. The last recourse of a Vantillian would be to assert somehow I need for these third party profits in order to know these things.

If one were to say you needed these profits in order to know these things because God hadn't revealed to you these things except for the Bible then the argument becomes self refuting.

There are lots of characters in the Bible who predate the Bible who also know things such as Noah from Genesis 9:24, who knew his son saw him naked.

Conclusion:

I'm forced to conclude because of the above that the van till followers really don't have an proof for Christianity.

For Christianity is a claim about what God has done, one of many others which cannot be excluded just because you have belief in the same God.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 9, 2021)

Hi, there.

Fairly devoted and self-conscious presuppositionalist here. Would you mind restating your post in a more concise and clear way? Your post is just a bunch of lines, and I’m not sure how any of them relate to the others. I’m struggling to find the actual argument being made. The numerous spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors only exacerbate the problem for me.

Thanks!

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Hi, there.
> 
> Fairly devoted and self-conscious presuppositionalist here. Would you mind restating your post in a more concise and clear way? Your post is just a bunch of lines, and I’m not sure how any of them relate to the others. I’m struggling to find the actual argument being made. The numerous spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors only exacerbate the problem for me.
> 
> Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## jubalsqaud (Sep 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Hi, there.
> 
> Fairly devoted and self-conscious presuppositionalist here. Would you mind restating your post in a more concise and clear way? Your post is just a bunch of lines, and I’m not sure how any of them relate to the others. I’m struggling to find the actual argument being made. The numerous spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors only exacerbate the problem for me.
> 
> Thanks!


I'm terribly sorry I'm doing this on a phone using a voice recognition software because I have nerve damage in my hands autocorrect is a pain and it's hard to manipulate the keys.

The dumb down version of this argument is basically this.

If it is possible to tell false stories about the real God then it follows that someone can believe that Jesus is a false prophet while simultaneously believing in the Christian God.


----------



## jw (Sep 9, 2021)

WUT

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## jubalsqaud (Sep 9, 2021)

I mean it's really not that hard of a concept...



jw said:


> WUT


Prior to Jesus actually being revealed as the Messiah people had an open-ended Messiah options on their hand.

If you just gave a list of names from the New testament to Noah and said one of these guys is the Messiah he wouldn't be able to pick out any of them in a principaled manner.


Noah lacks the essential belief of Christianity that the human named Jesus is the messiah, but he still believes in the same god



Noah not believing that the human person named Jesus was the while believing in the same God means belief that the human person of Jesus was god incarnate is not a prerequisite for believing in the Christian God.


----------



## jubalsqaud (Sep 9, 2021)

How I can I edit these my autocorrect is going nuts.

Figured it out


----------



## jw (Sep 9, 2021)

Don’t care about a perceived problem with Van Til. What teacheth the Scriptures?

Westminster Larger Catechism:

*Q. *30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
*A. *God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Grace.

1 Thess. 5:9; Gal. 3:10, 12; Titus 3:4-7; Gal. 3:21; Rom. 3:20-22.

*Q. *31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
*A. *The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

Gal. 3:16; Rom. 5:15-21; Isa. 53:10-11.

*Q. *32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
*A. *The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and, requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.

Gen. 3:15; Isa. 42:6; John 6:27; 1 John 5:11-12; John 3:16; John 1:12; Prov. 1:23; 2 Cor. 4:13; Gal. 5:22-23; Ezek. 36:27; Jas. 2:18, 22; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Eph. 2:10.

*Q. *33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
*A. *The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.

2 Cor. 3:6-9.

*Q. *34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
*A. *The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

Rom. 15:8; Acts 3:20, 24; Heb. 10:1; Rom. 4:11; 1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 8-10, 11:13; Gal. 3:7-9, 14.​
Noah didn’t need a list of names, and didn’t have one, so there’s no dilemma. Everything he needed he had.


----------



## jubalsqaud (Sep 9, 2021)

jw said:


> Don’t care about a perceived problem with Van Til. What teacheth the Scriptures?
> 
> Westminster Larger Catechism:
> 
> ...


I don't deny these things just so we're clear


----------



## jw (Sep 9, 2021)

Not implying you deny them, just wondering about your apparent concern. Your definition of Van Til presuppositionalism may be lacking? Simplistic? I'm not particularly Van Tillian, but I am "presuppositional" in that I believe that the Bible alone, and in its entirety is the Word of God.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 9, 2021)

jubalsqaud said:


> If it is possible to tell false stories about the real God then it follows that someone can believe that Jesus is a false prophet while simultaneously believing in the Christian God


So, Van Til was wrong because people can believe in contradictions?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2021)

I think there is a simpler problem. Claims like "preconditions of intelligibility" or "you have to presuppose the Trinity" are useless when you deal with most theistic claims and rival Trinitarian groups (Rome, EO, etc).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> So, Van Til was wrong because people can believe in contradictions?



He wasn't clear on that point. In some places he says the unbeliever only has false knowledge, which is immediately debunked by Romans 1. In his more careful moments he will say that he is operating inconsistently.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> In his more careful moments he will say that he is operating inconsistently.


This true of many of us but given over to a reprobate mind is beyond that. Mankind is actively redefining by turning one thing into something else and having our consciences darkened so that we can not see.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 9, 2021)

jubalsqaud said:


> If it is possible to tell false stories about the real God then it follows that someone can believe that Jesus is a false prophet while simultaneously believing in the Christian God.


I’m not sure how this disproves the validity of presuppositionalism.

P.S. I’m sorry about your nerve damage, brother! Voice recognition is awful.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I’m not sure how this disproves the validity of presuppositionalism.
> 
> P.S. I’m sorry about your nerve damage, brother! Voice recognition is awful.


Yeah, I read this statement as, “people lie, therefore Van Til was wrong.” I’m really confused about the logic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2021)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This true of many of us but given over to a reprobate mind is beyond that. Mankind is actively redefining by turning one thing into something else and having our consciences darkened so that we can not see.



Here is the problem. In some passages (and they are listed in the Sproul book) he says unbelievers either don't have true knowledge or they have false knowledge. The problem is that Romans 1 says they actually have knowledge of God, but they suppress it. If they only have false knowledge, then why would they suppress that knowledge? They can't suppress what they don't have.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jubalsqaud (Sep 9, 2021)

Van tills method is supposed to show how all non Christian worldviews entails some kind of contradiction on their own terms.



The problem is there are non-Christian world views that make use of the god of Christianity so somebody can just say okay your God is real and we need a messiah but it's not going to be Jesus.



So if van till wants to prove that Jesus being the Messiah is necessary the only recourse he has is to say "god told me Jesus was the Messiah therefore he is the messiah"


But that's not the transcendental method.

There's no way to prove just by demonstrating the basic format of the Jesus story is necessary for coherence that the Jesus story itself is the historical fulfillment of that format


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2021)

jubalsqaud said:


> Van tills method is supposed to show how all non Christian worldviews entails some kind of contradiction on their own terms.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is there are non-Christian world views that make use of the god of Christianity so somebody can just say okay your God is real and we need a messiah but it's not going to be Jesus.



I see what you are saying now. This actually is an important issue on epistemology. While some Van Tillians like to say that Van Til did hold to a correspondnce theory of truth, he still operated under the post-idealist coherentist model. If one holds to a coherentist model of truth, then it is really hard to say that some w-views are wrong. Some w-views could have a set of claims that a) don't contradict and b) make sense within the entire framework.

Even worse, on a coherentist model of truth, I can take a set of false propositions (the earth is flat, the earth is at the center of the universe, the election was fair) and since none of those propositions contradict each other, my w-view is true.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 9, 2021)

jubalsqaud said:


> The problem is there are non-Christian world views that make use of the god of Christianity so somebody can just say okay your God is real and we need a messiah but it's not going to be Jesus.


This is nonsense. The God of the Bible is the God of Christianity. If you deny who Jesus is according to the Bible, you don’t have the Christian God. 


jubalsqaud said:


> So if van till wants to prove that Jesus being the Messiah is necessary the only recourse he has is to say "god told me Jesus was the Messiah therefore he is the messiah"


God did tell him that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jubalsqaud (Sep 9, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> This is nonsense. The God of the Bible is the God of Christianity. If you deny who Jesus is according to the Bible, you don’t have the Christian God.
> 
> God did tell him that.


Did Noah know that the human named Jesus was the Son of God incarnate?

If the answer is no then he cannot have the Christian God.

Also if you go to Romans 10 verses 1 and 2 Paul says of the non-believing Jews that they have a zeal for God just not in accordance with righteousness.

Well they can't very well have a zeal for God unless they believe in God


----------



## jw (Sep 9, 2021)

jubalsqaud said:


> Did Noah know that the human named Jesus was the Son of God incarnate?
> 
> If the answer is no then he cannot have the Christian God.
> 
> ...


Noah believed God’s promise, and in the coming Messiah. At Noah’s time of living, Christ was not Godman, so I don’t really understand what you’re getting at.


----------



## jubalsqaud (Sep 9, 2021)

jw said:


> Noah believed God’s promise, and in the coming Messiah. At Noah’s time of living, Christ was not Godman, so I don’t really understand what you’re getting at.


It's essential doctrine for a christian to be able to identify the human person of the messiah.

It's absurd to say "I'm a christian but I don't know who the human person god incarnated as, maybe it was John the Baptist idk"


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 9, 2021)

I could be wrong, but I believe at the heart of what CVT says is a positive, not a negative, viewpoint of God's design in humanity and the amount of ‘illumination’ - I dont love that word - lets say knowledge of truth received and the divine source of these things.

As Christians, we know that the unbelievers take many things for granted. We know this because God creates all things. So they have faith in many things - they see, they know things, they read, they design things, they are theists, etc..... They may even believe that Jesus was a great man, or may even know that Jesus is the Son of God. They know many good things. All these good, productive things are taken for granted. They are all God given.

Either I dont get CVT or his skeptics are overthinking his brand of apologetics which I think is actually the best way to view the world and meet the skeptic. The only way a skeptic can contemplate anything is cause God gifted him with this ability. This can open up conversation about the fall, etc..... We see but our view is darkened. How darkened is up to the grace of God.


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 11, 2021)

Does any one else ever think they are reading an Alex Jones post when presup is being discussed? I see "vantillian" as "reptilian" once and I can't get it out of my head. Then I'm no longer sure if I'm reading about apologetics and epistemology or a way to defeat the reptilian invaders.

Anyway, carry on.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Sep 11, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I see what you are saying now. This actually is an important issue on epistemology. While some Van Tillians like to say that Van Til did hold to a correspondnce theory of truth, he still operated under the post-idealist coherentist model. If one holds to a coherentist model of truth, then it is really hard to say that some w-views are wrong. Some w-views could have a set of claims that a) don't contradict and b) make sense within the entire framework.
> 
> Even worse, on a coherentist model of truth, I can take a set of false propositions (the earth is flat, the earth is at the center of the universe, the election was fair) and since none of those propositions contradict each other, my w-view is true.


One thing I've learned from arguing with Roman Catholics is that there is considerable internal consistency to what many Roman Catholics believe. You have to accept some starting premises, of course, but once you do, many of Rome's arguments are exceedingly difficult to debunk because they follow from the starting premises in a way that's very difficult to debunk.* Likewise, many other worldviews have just enough internal consistency to be very plausible to the finite human mind. Going astray somewhat, one of the contributors to the fragmentation of society in our present day is precisely this: people have dozens of different worldviews, all with a plausible degree of internal consistency. As a society we have lost our set of shared starting points, and so people with different starting points have worked them out logically in their own heads, resulting in people shouting at each other in what are essentially different languages.

The problem with the argument from consistency is that it is very difficult not to end up denying incomprehensibility. The Christian worldview is the only one that is truly consistent, of course, but in the end you'd have to be God to truly know and understand that. Trying to demonstrate the consistency of Christianity in an understandable way brings with it the temptation to oversimplification. In the end, we're not Christians because it's the only worldview provably consistent in terms that we can understand, but because when the Holy Spirit lays it on our hearts that Christ is Lord, then we see that it couldn't possibly have been any other way.

But we only see it that way because we've accepted (with the help of the Spirit) a specific starting premise. Look at some of the Scriptural proofs for Christ used by Jesus and Paul: on the surface, they are no more convincing and no less apparently arbitrary than some of the "biblical" arguments used by flat-earthers. And in some ways this is a feature not a bug: God shows himself froward with the froward, and Isaiah and many of the parables explicitly express their intention to "veil" the truth from those hardened against it.

After bumbling his way down a series of dead-end trails, Inspector Morse hands a blackmail note to its author and says "It wasn't anyone else; it just had to be you". That's ultimately the case with Christianity. We can't, on our own, prove its superior consistency and necessity in ironclad terms. But we can _argue_ for precisely those things in hopes that the Holy Spirit will be in the room ready to make that connection between our words and another person's heart. And then they can see that it had to be Christ, all along.

*/ramble*

*Granted, the starting premises are flawed, and they allow for a theological system that changes while claiming never to change and contradicts itself while claiming to never contradict itself, but you have to consciously reject the starting premises (including a very specific definition of truth) to be able to see that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Sep 11, 2021)

jubalsqaud said:


> I'm terribly sorry I'm doing this on a phone using a voice recognition software because I have nerve damage in my hands autocorrect is a pain and it's hard to manipulate the keys.
> 
> The dumb down version of this argument is basically this.
> 
> If it is possible to tell false stories about the real God then it follows that *someone can believe that Jesus is a false prophet while simultaneously believing in the Christian God.*


If you believe that Jesus is a false prophet, you do not believe in the Christian God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 19, 2021)

_"Van Til admits that Calvin “did not bring out with sufficient clearness at all times that the natural man is as blind as a mole with respect to natural things as well as with respect to spiritual things.“ Van Til points out that, nevertheless, Calvin lessens the contrast by saying that the unbeliever’s knowledge of earthly things is vanity and that the unbeliever sometimes states true things regarding heavenly matters. Fesko responds by saying that “The problem of Van Til’s analysis is that it contradicts Calvin’s clear statements on the matter. Calvin unmistakably states that the unbelievers are blind with regard to heavenly knowledge but not blind to earthly knowledge” (66-67). But Calvin does not say that unbelievers are “not blind to earthly knowledge.” He does say that their earthly knowledge is vanity and that, concerning the reasoning of unbelievers: “being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a shapeless ruin is all that remains.” Calvin’s position is that fallen reason is not “utterly fruitless,”but it is corrupted.

Likewise, when Van Til says that “the natural man is as blind as a mole with respect to natural things,” he is not denying all knowledge to unbelievers but is saying that the unregenerate have a vision that is “blurred.” And he further says that the unregenerate have a less distorted view of earthly things than heavenly things: “. . . that from an ultimate point of view, the natural man knows nothing truly, but that from a relative point of view he knows something about all things. He knows all things after a fashion, and his fashion is best when he deals with earthly things such as electricity, etc.” The natural man knows nothing truly in the sense that they try to place their knowledge in the false context of a world without God, but, because they actually live in God’s world, they can’t be entirely consistent with their God-denying worldview. “Men can read nature aright only when it is studied as the home of a man who is made in the image of God.”The problem with a sharp distinction between earthly and heavenly knowledge is that atheism has a distorting effect on how atheists understand earthly matters. Since God’s existence is revealed through creation, and since man is in rebellion against God, then unbelievers are compelled to distort earthly things in order to deny heavenly things. The more that atheists try to be consistent with their denial of God (the more that they are “epistemologically self-conscious”), the more that they are going to distort earthly knowledge. Van Til also points out that atheist scientists do no limit their talk to earthly things; they draw all sorts of implications from their scientific studies about reality as a whole. And the Bible does not limit itself to heavenly matters, but speaks of the origin and destiny of the earthly world._"

"_I still need to answer this question: What does Van Til mean by “worldview”? Here is the definition that he gives: “Philosophy, as usually defined, deals with a theory of reality, with a theory of knowledge, and with a theory of ethics. That is to say philosophies usually undertake to present a life and world view.” Covering these three areas gives a comprehensive interpretation of reality: “The Christian life and world view, it was argued, presents itself as an absolutely comprehensive interpretation of human experience.” Note that the Bible is comprehensive in terms of covering the three major branches of philosophy, not in the sense of providing comprehensive knowledge of the world. Greg Bahnsen, by the way, uses the same definition of worldview as Van Til: “The Christian worldview, as Van Til never tired of emphasizing, must be defended as a unity (comprising metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics in an unbreakable system) over against the sinful worldviews of the natural man.” Is it distinctly Kantian to have an integrated system of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics? No. Does having an integrated system of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics entail anti-Christian ideas? No. Does Fesko object to a philosophy that has an integrated view of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics?

Fesko may not object, yet Thomistic philosophy undermines this definition of worldview. Van Til objects that Aquinas tries to integrate an anti-Christian view of all three areas of philosophy into Christianity, making Thomism inadequately integrated. The Thomistic procedure can be described as attempting to use an anti-Christian epistemology to prove Christian metaphysics – namely, the Christian God. (Things aren’t exactly this neat. No philosopher has developed an epistemology without having some concept of metaphysics in view. What we claim exists and how we claim to know what exists are inextricably related issues.) As I have explained, Van Til argues that the Aristotelian epistemology can only lead to an anti-Christian view of metaphysics, not the God of the Bible. If “worldview” seems like an alien concept to Thomists, it is because their philosophy is not integrated. Their distinction between reason and faith, with the first derived from Aristotle and the second derived from the Bible, undermines viewing Christianity as a worldview, having an integrated view of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Van Til says, “Both men [Warfield and Bavinck] view the place of Scripture as imbedded in their total outlook on life. They do not build the first story of their house by reason in order then to add a second story built by faith. Their outlook on life is a living whole. For convenience we speak of this total outlook on reality as a world and life view.” Van Til depicts Thomists as having a two-story house with the first story built from Aristotle’s philosophy, which is then used to reach the second story that is built from the Bible. But the first story is inconsistent with the second story, like a building that provides no way to reach the second floor from the first floor. In fact, the first floor is a collapsing floor because it undermines the possibility of reason, knowledge, and ethics." 

".....In conclusion, Fesko and the other Reformed Thomists who endorse his book need to start over from scratch. They don’t understand Van Til’s criticisms of Aquinas. If Van Til misunderstands Aquinas, they haven’t proven it. Or better, they should realize that they didn’t understand Van Til, but now he makes a lot of sense. They should realize that *Van Til’s apologetic methodology provides the best answers to the philosophical and evidential claims against Christianity and it best defends the Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, man’s total depravity, and the supremacy of Scripture*." - Mike Warren_

Hmmm....Mic drop?

The last 15 miutes or so is pretty relevant on CVT....


----------



## Irenaeus (Sep 20, 2021)

The problem with that quote is the irony of it all. The burden of proof actually rests on Van Til to defend all the unproven assertions he makes about Thomism. The fourth paragraph is rife with leaps of logic.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> In conclusion, Fesko and the other Reformed Thomists who endorse his book need to start over from scratch. They don’t understand Van Til’s criticisms of Aquinas. If Van Til misunderstands Aquinas, they haven’t proven it. Or better, they should realize that they didn’t understand Van Til, but now he makes a lot of sense. They should realize that *Van Til’s apologetic methodology provides the best answers to the philosophical and evidential claims against Christianity and it best defends the Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, man’s total depravity, and the supremacy of Scripture*." - Mike Warren



What's really ironic is that CVT almost never interacts with Thomas in any detail. You don't find any serious analysis of key texts in Thomas. Everything Warren says about Fesko applies to CVT's analysis.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Sep 20, 2021)

Editing the Title from 'profit' to 'Prophet'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What's really ironic is that CVT almost never interacts with Thomas in any detail. You don't find any serious analysis of key texts in Thomas. Everything Warren says about Fesko applies to CVT's analysis.


Warren does touch on that claim but I’m not too concerned with that.

Is Thomas a Calvinist? Or is Calvin a Thomist? I believe that’s our biggest concern… no?

_“Calvin’s statements don’t contain much argument, just the moral appeal that men should turn their minds to the wisdom of God when they see the design and order of nature. That is no basis for claiming that Calvin accepted Aquinas’s arguments in their full context, which incorporates Aristotelian philosophy. Van Til argues that Calvin’s approach to knowledge undermines the Scholastic view of knowledge, so Calvin’s views are not a subset of Aquinas’s if this related issue is taken into account. Fesko appeals to Calvin’s remarks about connecting the beauty and order of creation to the wisdom of the Creator in order to rebut Van Til’s claim that Calvin rejected the Scholastic view of knowledge. He should have stuck to directly addressing Van Til’s argument regarding Calvin and Scholasticism.

The argument that Van Til makes for Calvin rejecting Scholasticism is that in the first paragraph of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, he appeals to beginning with the positive revelation of Scripture as necessary to have true knowledge of man is as well as God. [19] This contrasts with Aquinas’s empiricist approach that leads to saying, at the beginning of Summa Theologica, “We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not.” While Calvin does not explicitly repudiate Aquinas’s method of remotion and other Aristotelean ideas about form and matter, he never appeals to knowing God by beginning with experience and then negating the positive aspects of the empirical world until we reach an empty universal that we call God.[20] Van Til also appeals to Calvin’s statements that men fail to acknowledge God because they are willfully blind.[21] In contrast, Aquinas says that through nature we know God in a “general and confused way”[22]because this knowledge is gained through effects that are not proportionate to the cause.[23] In other words, the nature of the evidence obscures the knowledge of God rather than man’s rebellion against clear, inescapable evidence. Fesko cites Calvin’s Institutes at 1.5.11 to argue that “In fact, with Aquinas, Calvin believed that only the philosophically learned could access this natural knowledge of God; this is something that the common rabble could not do” (64). Actually, Calvin’s statement in this paragraph is in keeping with Van Til’s anti-Thomistic characterization of Calvin’s views. Calvin says here, “Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them.” The problem, again, is not the obscurity of the revelation but the depravity of man. Calvin’s point in regard to philosophers in this passage is that they, as the most acute inquirers into the nature of reality, should see God’s glory manifest in nature better than most, but they don’t. Despite the clarity of natural revelation, even the most distinguished philosophers “labour under such hallucinations” and are prone to “vanity and error.”_

Did Aquinas borrow anti-Christian thought from Aristotle? That is the concern. Is God to be comprehended (or deduced) via natural revelation and human reason? I think that’s the concern with a Roman Catholic conception if I’m following from CVT’s perspective accurately. *A total depravity of fallen man is the dividing line. So was Calvin a Thomist? Did Aquinas see the total depravity of man as part of the equation? *


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Warren does touch on that claim but I’m not too concerned with that.



It's literally the issue. By not dealing with it he shows himself ignorant of key claims.


A.Joseph said:


> Is Thomas a Calvinist? Or is Calvin a Thomist? I believe that’s our biggest concern… no?



Not one single person outside of John Gerstner claimed Thomas is a Calvinist. This is a red herring.


A.Joseph said:


> Did Aquinas borrow anti-Christian thought from Aristotle? That is the concern



Did CVT borrow anti-Christian thought from Kant? That is the concern. (See what I am doing? You are poisoning the well by calling Aristotle "anti-Christian," which means we need to say things like WCF 5.2 is "anti-Christian).


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> While Calvin does not explicitly repudiate Aquinas’s method of remotion and other Aristotelean ideas about form and matter, he never appeals to knowing God by beginning with experience and then negating the positive aspects of the empirical world until we reach an empty universal that we call God



This is why he needs to understand his concepts, of which he is ignorant. Thomas does not say we negate the positive aspects of the empirical world. Rather, he says we negate the finite mode of an attribute before we apply it to God. I'm almost glad Warren made this mistake, as it illustrates the key issue.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's literally the issue. By not dealing with it he shows himself ignorant of key claims.
> 
> 
> Not one single person outside of John Gerstner claimed Thomas is a Calvinist. This is a red herring.
> ...


Ok, but a belief that God can be deduced via human reasoning in conjunction with natural revelation I reckon would be problematic.

Your other charges are not for me to take up. This gentleman I’m quoting does so to an extent you may or may not find satisfactory. So I will respect your position.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

I think it comes down to the operation of grace. The extent of our depravity and how all encompassing grace is to our entire understanding and comprehension of spiritual matters which thus spills into every other area of existence. I’m not sure this piece can be glossed over. I think that’s what’s at stake, but I may be wrong. That’s what I think CVT is getting at. I believe that’s where he’s coming from in his apologetic and critique of what he seems to deem a lesser approach.


----------



## jw (Sep 20, 2021)

This thing still goin’?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Ok, but a belief that God can be deduced via human reasoning in conjunction with natural revelation I reckon would be problematic.



There is a difference between knowing _That _God exists and _what_ kind of God exists. Natural revelation claims the former, not the latter. That is completely legitimate.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I think it comes down to the operation of grace. The extent of our depravity and how all encompassing grace is to our entire understanding and comprehension of spiritual matters which thus spills into every other area of existence. I’m not sure this piece can be glossed over. I think that’s what’s at stake, but I may be wrong. That’s what I think CVT is getting at. I believe that’s where he’s coming from in his apologetic and critique of what he seems to deem a lesser approach.



Aquinas holds to physical premotion. He holds to the priority of divine grace. Unfortunately, it is mediated through baptism and that gets problematic, but CVT's critique otherwise misses the target.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is a difference between knowing _That _God exists and _what_ kind of God exists. Natural revelation claims the former, not the latter. That is completely legitimate.


So, wouldn’t an apologetic that leads with the Revealed word of truth be proper? I’m not saying common ground isn’t a desirable meeting place. But a futile appeal to reason with a spiritually hardened world feels like a cowardly approach. I believe a carnal or shallow Christianity is born out of a high view of a fallen world. I’m not looking down on the fallen world. But God’s glory can’t be denied.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Hmmm....Mic drop?
> 
> The last 15 miutes or so is pretty relevant on CVT....


Anthony this video is very helpful and I have been listening to it as part of my reflections on the Divine passability vs mutualism debate. Lane Tipton is a very good interpreter of Van Til.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Anthony this video is very helpful and I have been listening to it as part of my reflections on the Divine passability vs mutualism debate. Lane Tipton is a very good interpreter of Van Til.


I’m on my 3rd viewing.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Aquinas holds to physical premotion. He holds to the priority of divine grace. Unfortunately, it is mediated through baptism and that gets problematic, but CVT's critique otherwise misses the target.


I think an institutional church thrives when it is elevated above revelation or revealed truth. Aquinas is part of that tradition. That’s more than a small problem no matter how off the rails and irrelevant the RCC has become….


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I think an institutional church thrives when it is elevated above revelation or revealed truth. Aquinas is part of that tradition. That’s more than a small problem no matter how off the rails and irrelevant the RCC has become….



Anyone who believes in the visible church believes at some level in the institutional church. I'm also not sure how anyone is elevating x above special revelation. If anything, Aquinas is usually guilty of grace being elevated above nature.

I also note in your first sentence about "revelation." Revelation also includes natural revelation, and sometimes natural revelation, like in astronomy, corrects how we interpret special revelation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> So, wouldn’t an apologetic that leads with the Revealed word of truth be proper? I’m not saying common ground isn’t a desirable meeting place. But a futile appeal to reason with a spiritually hardened world feels like a cowardly approach. I believe a carnal or shallow Christianity is born out of a high view of a fallen world. I’m not looking down on the fallen world. But God’s glory can’t be denied.



That's the problem. You are assuming reason and the laws of logic to even interpret the Bible. This is where presups confuse the order of being with the order of knowing.


----------



## 83r17h (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the problem. You are assuming reason and the laws of logic to even interpret the Bible. This is where presups confuse the order of being with the order of knowing.



Jacob, could it also be that in requiring special revelation (specifically as the content of Scripture) as having epistemological antecedent to other knowledge, they are making a confusion (or rejection) of the natural / positive distinction?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the problem. You are assuming reason and the laws of logic to even interpret the Bible. This is where presups confuse the order of being with the order of knowing.


But how is that a problem for the believer. We are most consistent. Im wondering if your conception of things like reason and logic are being parsed from true knowledge - or the origin of true knowledge. Isn’t this what CVT means when he suggests ….. hold on….


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

@BayouHuguenot …. You are smarter than I, at the risk of defeating your own argument, explain what the author espouses here:
”_Thomistic philosophy undermines this definition of worldview. Van Til objects that *Aquinas tries to integrate an anti-Christian view of all three areas of philosophy into Christianity, making Thomism inadequately integrated. *The Thomistic procedure can be described as *attempting to use an anti-Christian epistemology to prove Christian metaphysics – namely, the Christian God.* (Things aren’t exactly this neat. No philosopher has developed an epistemology without having some concept of metaphysics in view. *What we claim exists and how we claim to know what exists are inextricably related issues.*) As I have explained, *Van Til argues that the Aristotelian epistemology can only lead to an anti-Christian view of metaphysics, not the God of the Bible. If “worldview” seems like an alien concept to Thomists, it is because their philosophy is not integrated. Their distinction between reason and faith, with the first derived from Aristotle and the second derived from the Bible, undermines viewing Christianity as a worldview, having an integrated view of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Van Til says, “Both men [Warfield and Bavinck] view the place of Scripture as imbedded in their total outlook on life. They do not build the first story of their house by reason in order then to add a second story built by faith. Their outlook on life is a living whole. For convenience we speak of this total outlook on reality as a world and life view.” Van Til depicts Thomists as having a two-story house with the first story built from Aristotle’s philosophy, which is then used to reach the second story that is built from the Bible. But the first story is inconsistent with the second story, like a building that provides no way to reach the second floor from the first floor. In fact, the first floor is a collapsing floor because it undermines the possibility of reason, knowledge, and ethics."*_

It sounds like the God of the Bible, the source of all things, is sacrificed from the beginning…. That’s quite a blind spot. If I am interpreting the quote wrong, how would you ? even at risk of sounding objective. (You are a pretty fair minded guy from what I can tell ). Does the author get Aristotle wrong? That appears to be the concern.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the problem. You are assuming reason and the laws of logic to even interpret the Bible. This is where presups confuse the order of being with the order of knowing.


I’m saying reason without regeneration. How can a believer check their knowledge at the door when doing apologetics?


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Anyone who believes in the visible church believes at some level in the institutional church. I'm also not sure how anyone is elevating x above special revelation. If anything, Aquinas is usually guilty of grace being elevated above nature.
> 
> I also note in your first sentence about "revelation." Revelation also includes natural revelation, and sometimes natural revelation, like in astronomy, corrects how we interpret special revelation.


Natural revelation is secondary though, correct? Does Aquinas make the distinction between natural man and regenerated man the way a Calvinist would?


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m saying reason without regeneration. How can a believer check their knowledge at the door when doing apologetics? Of course the order is confused —— the former is sorely lacking. There is not real truth at the core since the former are outside God in simply being. They are willfully ignorant. We are being before we are knowing, in a restorative sense. So we can only know if we know rightly.


I’m not sure how the order of being —— a product/order of God’s creation and knowing/gaining knowledge —— via the physical world and experience fits in CVT’s analysis. But I think his main distinction is between belief and unbelief. True and false origins. The unbeliever at worst gets it wrong and at best may have a slight conception but the truth is repressed to the point that they are in the dark. Doesnt this darkness have to be lifted first?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Natural revelation is secondary though, correct? Does Aquinas make the distinction between natural man and regenerated man the way a Calvinist would?



I don't see what its being secondary (if that even makes sense) has to do with the discussion. Secondary in time or secondary in importance?

Yes, Aquinas makes such a distinction, but I am not sure how that makes a difference.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m saying reason without regeneration. How can a believer check their knowledge at the door when doing apologetics?



No one is saying check knowledge at the door. Sproul's book is very clear on that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I found this quoted portion online and it would make me a bit skeptical.
> _”Theologian St. Thomas Aquinas and philosopher Aristotle had a lot in common even though they were born about sixteen hundred years apart. They both believed in the God/s and respected them. Of course during the time of Aristotle, the many people believed in more than one God. Aristotle respected the many Gods, but still doubted them. The common ideas through these two great individuals help improve Christian thought during the thirteenth century.
> 
> One idea that was first introduced by Aristotle and then used by St. Thomas Aquinas was that the truths of faith and those of sense experience are fully compatible and complementary. This means that one can only understand the mysteries of God, through revelation. One example of this is the mystery of the incarnation. Incarnation is when God the Son, became human and lived on this world.
> ...



What's the website?


----------



## 83r17h (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m not sure how the order of being —— a product of God’s creation and knowing—— via the physical world fits in CVT’s analysis. But I think his main distinction is between belief and unbelief. True and false origins.



I believe that Jacob is saying that the preconditions of knowledge are ontological, not epistemological. 

God must exist, and have created, in order for me to know that 2+2=4. This is the order of being. 2+2=4 presupposes God's existence. 

However, in the order of knowing, the order may be reversed. The proposition "God exists" is not necessary to proceed from "2+2" to "4." 

Bavinck makes this point in his prolegomena if I remember correctly, when discussing the Word and the Church. The Word exists before the Church, and is the source of it. However, the Church typically comes before the Word pedagogically in the believer's experience. That's an example of the difference between order or being and order of knowing.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> @BayouHuguenot …. You are smarter than I, at the risk of defeating your own argument, explain what the author espouses here:
> ”_Thomistic philosophy undermines this definition of worldview. Van Til objects that *Aquinas tries to integrate an anti-Christian view of all three areas of philosophy into Christianity, making Thomism inadequately integrated. *The Thomistic procedure can be described as *attempting to use an anti-Christian epistemology to prove Christian metaphysics – namely, the Christian God.* (Things aren’t exactly this neat. No philosopher has developed an epistemology without having some concept of metaphysics in view. *What we claim exists and how we claim to know what exists are inextricably related issues.*) As I have explained, *Van Til argues that the Aristotelian epistemology can only lead to an anti-Christian view of metaphysics, not the God of the Bible. If “worldview” seems like an alien concept to Thomists, it is because their philosophy is not integrated. Their distinction between reason and faith, with the first derived from Aristotle and the second derived from the Bible, undermines viewing Christianity as a worldview, having an integrated view of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Van Til says, “Both men [Warfield and Bavinck] view the place of Scripture as imbedded in their total outlook on life. They do not build the first story of their house by reason in order then to add a second story built by faith. Their outlook on life is a living whole. For convenience we speak of this total outlook on reality as a world and life view.” Van Til depicts Thomists as having a two-story house with the first story built from Aristotle’s philosophy, which is then used to reach the second story that is built from the Bible. But the first story is inconsistent with the second story, like a building that provides no way to reach the second floor from the first floor. In fact, the first floor is a collapsing floor because it undermines the possibility of reason, knowledge, and ethics."*_
> 
> It sounds like the God of the Bible, the source of all things, is sacrificed from the beginning…. That’s quite a blind spot. If I am interpreting the quote wrong, how would you ? even at risk of sounding objective. (You are a pretty fair minded guy from what I can tell ). Does the author get Aristotle wrong? That appears to be the concern.



Many issues are at play here. Can we just focus on one? And in any case, Van Til's commitment to Kantian and idealist categories represents a philosophical milieu far more diabolical than Aristotle.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m not sure how the order of being —— a product/order of God’s creation and knowing/gaining knowledge —— via the physical world and experience fits in CVT’s analysis. But I think his main distinction is between belief and unbelief. True and false origins. The unbeliever at worst gets it wrong and at best may have a slight conception but the truth is repressed to the point that they are in the dark. Doesnt this darkness have to be lifted first?



God is the order of being and is logically prior to everything. Our knowing, however, doesn't always begin with God. Before we can even say "I believe in God," we have used logical categories prior to our even getting to God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What's the website?


That quote seems a little off.

But here ….“In the wider context of his philosophy, Aquinas held that human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of God and the immortality of the soul; for those who cannot or do not engage in such strenuous intellectual activity, however, these matters are also revealed and can be known by faith.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/Faith-and-reason

Seems at odds for us. A strange kind of overlap….between natural and supernatural knowledge of God via ‘intellectual activity.’ I’m assuming it only scratches the surface of Aquinas’ thought. I think it misses out on desire and what Luther termed the bondage of the will. Our “free will’ will only entertain certain notions based on our inclinations. Our inclinations are predisposed to higher things to the degree that our spiritual inclinations are restored. Aristotle and even Aquinas are products of times when inclinations toward higher, spiritual things were intellectual pursuits at the very least. We are living in a time that such pursuits seem to be waning and we are left with the need for true revelation as espoused in the written word. Just my 2 cents. I’m not sure how CVT is an idealist exactly. But I would think somebody who does apologetics is seeing a fuller picture without being too bogged down by philosophical proofs. CVT is starting with the revealed word as THE presupposition for all truth. Is that idealism? Natural revelation is sound, compelling supplements found in the order, design, purpose, etc., of creation. Nobody disputes those things, certainly not the believer. Other religions miss the mark. Liberals are highly religious and idealistic. But there is only one true religion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> .“In the wider context of his philosophy, Aquinas held that human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of God and the immortality of the soul; for those who cannot or do not engage in such strenuous intellectual activity, however, these matters are also revealed and can be known by faith.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/Faith-and-reason
> 
> Seems at odds for us. A strange kind of overlap….between natural and supernatural knowledge of God via ‘intellectual activity.’



I don't see the problem. Reason can establish that God exists, not what kind of God exists. Same with the soul. If I am not identical with my material body and the mind exists, then the soul follows. 

I would also urge you to consult actual Thomist sources . Start with Feser.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't see the problem. Reason can establish that God exists, not what kind of God exists. Same with the soul. If I am not identical with my material body and the mind exists, then the soul follows.
> 
> I would also urge you to consult actual Thomist sources . Start with Feser.


Sure. Unaided reason can provide a loose conception of those things. Aquinas is a brilliant thinker.

We can reason for we know that we are created male and female. Others reason some very strange things aided by their suppressed knowledge and depraved inclinations.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

Did I happen to mention this great video on Theistic Mutualism? There are many roads and vague notions to that destination.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Others reason some very strange things aided by their suppressed knowledge and depraved inclinations.



Sure, and regenerate Christians can say some strange things about the doctrine of God, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Did I happen to mention this great video on Theistic Mutualism? There are many roads and vague notions to that destination.



What is the tl;dr version?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Sorry, I don’t think he addresses some of the charges against CVT as far as idealism is concerned or his apologetics. But it’s a good listen nonetheless and I think there is a general concern that Aquinas may have espoused a form of theistic mutualism but he does not make such a claim outright.



I don't possibly see how Aquinas could have espoused theistic mutualism. There is one name above all in classical theism that is against theistic mutualism, and that is Aquinas. Even non-Nicene thinkers like Owen Strachan concede as much. Theistic mutualist John Frame attacks Aquinas precisely because Aquinas holds to classical theism.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is a difference between knowing _That _God exists and _what_ kind of God exists. Natural revelation claims the former, not the latter. That is completely legitimate.


I meant solely deduced. Or that as a foundation of apologetic apart from divine revelation.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 20, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't possibly see how Aquinas could have espoused theistic mutualism. There is one name above all in classical theism that is against theistic mutualism, and that is Aquinas. Even non-Nicene thinkers like Owen Strachan concede as much. Theistic mutualist John Frame attacks Aquinas precisely because Aquinas holds to classical theism.


Yes, you are right. I’m thinking of another discussion - reformed forum - where the Roman Catholic conception of the fall of Adam is discussed. My bad. Pastor Tipton is expressing that CVT stood against mutualism in this video. My apology.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 26, 2021)

jubalsqaud said:


> Hanniah the profit renders van tillian apologetics useless.
> 
> The reason this is the case is because van tillian presuppositionalism is supposed to show the necessity of the Christian worldview.
> 
> ...


I have to say it seems like, from a redneck Florida's boy POV, your shooting buckshot at Van Til. I think the major problem would be "sure anyone can believe in the Christian God and still go to hell, including philosophical theists". It takes faith to be saved, which is a gift from God. 
Also you have problems with circularaty and evidences. 

Evidence is fine from a Vantillian perspective as long as they are placed in the proper perspective. Circularaty is inevitable, after postmodernism we learned, what Van Til always said, we reason in circles. I assume things and than I try justify those assumptions by assuming those assumptions. Everyone does it.

Evidences are legitimate because they lend credibility to what we're saying, but they don't prove it on there own.


----------

