# Van Til and paradox



## Puritan Sailor

Ok. I would be curious to investigate this allegation further. I've heard people argue that Vantil believed there were contradictions or paradoxes in theology. Some argue this is the basis for Federal Vision thinking. I would like to explore this allegation of paradox. 

Is this allegation true? 

Thread rules:
1) Use PRIMARY sources to prove or disprove the allegation.
2) Charity brothers!!! Stick to this particular issue. No ad homs against Van Til or each other.

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## Magma2

Please read my piece; The Evisceration of the Christian Faith @ http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=208 . I interact with primary sources and VT's best defenders. 

This issue, if you haven't noticed, has been a sticking point for me since the days I first came to the Reformed faith, long before the FV reared it's ugly head. I remember a very bright young member of my church at the time gave me a copy of Frame's "œVT the Theologian" just to see what I thought (copied from the North book and originally titled; "œThe Problem of Theological Paradox"). I remember thinking at the time; no wonder Calvinism is in the backwater of Evangelicalism. What I read was sheer nonsense. Now, don't get me wrong, Evangelicalism broadly speaking is a complete wasteland, yet I thought even this was preferable to the nonsense I encountered in the Frame piece. I will say prior to coming to the Reformed faith the only ray of light was from Francis Schaeffer, who, while having some minor problems of his own, still believed Christianity was a rational faith. That has always been my position, even when I first came to Christ after years of a complete embrace of irrationality and sin. I´m quite sure I have more in common with Paul Manta than I care to admit (maybe the topic for another "œcommon ground" thread ? We can swap depravity stories.)  I suppose this is why I find VT and the subsequent developments from his thought so abhorrent, even if not at all surprising.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Please read my piece; The Evisceration of the Christian Faith @ http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=208 . I interact with primary sources and VT's best defenders.
> 
> This issue, if you haven't noticed, has been a sticking point for me since the days I first came to the Reformed faith, long before the FV reared it's ugly head. I remember a very bright young member of my church at the time gave me a copy of Frame's "œVT the Theologian" just to see what I thought (copied from the North book and originally titled; "œThe Problem of Theological Paradox"). I remember thinking at the time; no wonder Calvinism is in the backwater of Evangelicalism. What I read was sheer nonsense. Now, don't get me wrong, Evangelicalism broadly speaking is a complete wasteland, yet I thought even this was preferable to the nonsense I encountered in the Frame piece. I will say prior to coming to the Reformed faith the only ray of light was from Francis Schaeffer, who, while having some minor problems of his own, still believed Christianity was a rational faith. That has always been my position, even when I first came to Christ after years of a complete embrace of irrationality and sin. I´m quite sure I have more in common with Paul Manta than I care to admit (maybe the topic for another "œcommon ground" thread ? We can swap depravity stories.)  I suppose this is why I find VT and the subsequent developments from his thought so abhorrent, even if not at all surprising.


I think the article, while well-researched, is very rude and hyperbolic. It comes across as if you're literally foaming at the mouth and thinking of every possible vile thing to say about Van Til and any of his disciples.

Where is there any sense of gentleness or humility? Why must their views lead all inexorably to a complete and utter denial of systematic theology and eschewing all rational deduction?

At best, you demonstrate that you fall into the slippery slope fallacy and assume that all who adopt the Van Tillian apologetic must think and do the absolute worst that could come from what you perceive as the _reductio ad absurdum_ of their position.

You don't even _attempt_ to recognize that there are Godly men who have the highest view of Scripture and the love of Christ who may be in error.

I think whatever truth you expose is far overshadowed by the lack of love you show for the brethren in heaping unfair insult after unfair insult. I don't know why you're always so angry in much of you posting about Van Til and his followers but it is visceral to many of us. It ought to be a warning to your soul at your apparent lack of ability to say "Peace" to fellow brothers.

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Please, lets just stick with Van Til in this thread. 

Perhaps Sean you could post some of your Van Til quotes here in this thread.

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No problem. I'm going to remove the question and start a new thread.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I did some searching and found this old thread related to the topic. It may resurrect some discussion, especially in light of the building sentiment to blame Van Til for helping the Federal Vision. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8133#pid122744


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Vantil believed there were contradictions or paradoxes in theology. Some argue this is the basis for Federal Vision thinking. I would like to explore this allegation of paradox. [Edited on 5-23-2006 by puritansailor]



I don't have time to do a lot of research in Van Til, but a couple of comments:

1) To start the broken record again, the centerpiece of CVT's theology, as with all the orthodox was the Creator/creature distinction. Many of his critics do not accept this distinction or apply it inconsistently. The analogue to that was the traditional distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. We can never know what God knows the way he knows it. In that case our speech about God is always and only analogical. There must be paradoxes. We ought not be ashamed of them. Our salvation is paradoxical! We were saved by the shameful crucixion of God the Son on a Roman cross. Luther called this the theology of the cross. Paul called it the foolishess of the Gospel (1 Cor 1-2).

2) Paradoxes have to considered and defined carefully. A paradox is not an absolute contradiction, i.e., not a contradiction for God. There are no such things. Are there things we creatures cannot explain fully? Absolutely. The relations between the way God understands things and the way we understand them are properly called paradoxical. Attempts to resolve such paradoxes necessarily flow from or lead to rationalism (the identification of the human intellective faculty with the divine or the use of some created rationality to leverage divine revelation). 

3) I don't see any necessary logical connection between CVT and the FV. The latter indulges in late Modern subjectivism/irrationalism but also demonstrates elements of Modern rationalism in their attempt to make salvation more "reasonable." If justification is by grace through faithfulness, the scandal justification sola gratia, sola fide is mitigated. If we're united to Christ in baptism and we retain those benefits through faithfulness, the scandal is mitigated. The irrationalism is evident when the FV refuse to correlate their reading of redemptive history with Reformed dogmatics.

CVT was staunch critic of both rationalism and irrationalism. His theology has little to do with CVT unless "subjectivism" = refusal to identify the human intellect with the divine! 

The actual roots of the FV lie in several places: a) the modern antipathy to systematic theology, with which antipathy CVT did not sympathize; b) a massive revision of covenant theology beginning with Barth -- no one in the 20th century was more thoroughly critical of Barth than CVT; c) Mr Murray's discomfort with the traditional covenant scheme certainly helped create sympathy for revisionist tendencies in more conservative circles; d) near universal ignorance among 20th century American Reformed folk of historic Reformed theological categories; e) moralist sympathies, driven by reaction to antinomian evangelicalism, rooted in Norm Shepherd's revision of covenant theology and the doctrine of justification; f) Klaas Schilder's revision of covenant theology was another stream of influence that flowed into the creation of the FV; g) the NPP helped create plausibility within conservative evangelicalism and Reformed circles for the sorts of revisions offered earlier in the 20th century.

The attempt to tag CVT with causal responsibility for the FV is unhistorical and grounded in a series of false assumptions and conclusions drawn from those assumptions.

rsc

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Civbert

I know these were comments in brief, but I'll assume they present the CVT position well. So consider my comments as the criticisms of CVT in brief.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 1) To start the broken record again, the centerpiece of CVT's theology, as with all the orthodox was the Creator/creature distinction. Many of his critics do not accept this distinction or apply it inconsistently. The analogue to that was the traditional distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. We can never know what God knows the way he knows it. ...


The last clause I underline because it's the one that Clark agreed with. But with it in place, what is said to follow, doesn't. For the "way" God knows is eternally - the mode of God's knowledge is different. But content can be the same between God and man - ergo the Scriptures. If man can not know God's thoughts, than the Scriptures are pointless. We can not know them, or what we think we know, is never what God knows. I think that in fact, the Scriptures are God's thoughts, and when we know them, we know the same thoughts God knows. When we know "Jesus died for sin", that is the same thought God knows, even if the mode of knowing is different.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> .... In that case our speech about God is always and only analogical. ...


 And I'm sure that someone will clarify this, because CVT's definition of analogy is not standard here. I'll just say that an analogy is not the same as the truth.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ... There must be paradoxes.....


This does not follow.


> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ... We ought not be ashamed of them. Our salvation is paradoxical! ...


This does not follow.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> We were saved by the shameful crucixion of God the Son on a Roman cross. Luther called this the theology of the cross. Paul called it the foolishess of the Gospel (1 Cor 1-2).


 Shameful? There was nothing shameful about Christ's sacrifice to save us. It was necessary.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 2) Paradoxes have to considered and defined carefully. A paradox is not an absolute contradiction, i.e., not a contradiction for God. ...


This means man is incapable of understanding God's revelation. If it is a contradiction the way man understand something, then man does not understand the truth. For it not to be a contradiction for God, yet it is a contradiction for man, then man does not correctly understand what God understands. 



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> ... There are no such things. Are there things we creatures cannot explain fully? Absolutely. The relations between the way God understands things and the way we understand them are properly called paradoxical. ....


 The "way" and the "what" are two different things. While God "knows" things eternally (and man temporally), God understands things logically, in the same way man does. The logical relationships that make language have meaning (the laws of logic) are not temporal, they are eternal. So that the "way" God understands is the same "way" man understands. The only question is, can man understand "what" God understands (the contents (propositional truths) of God's revelation. So, there is no paradox between the way God and man understand. The only question is regarding the "what". And that is not necessary paradoxical either.




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ... Attempts to resolve such paradoxes necessarily flow from or lead to rationalism (the identification of the human intellective faculty with the divine or the use of some created rationality to leverage divine revelation).



Yes, this is how we come up with the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Doctrine of Works, and all the other doctrines that we deduce by good and necessary consequences from the Scriptures.

This whole idea that God's knowledge and mans' knowledge is analogical, and leads to paradox, is the problem with CVT's philosophy. And that he made it the "center piece" is really really bad theology. It's the reason for the inconsistencies in CVT's statements. I think he regrets it now, but he put so much in to it, that he could not abandon it without losing face.

Maybe the problem is the definition of paradox. It seems that a paradox is and is not a contradiction for Van Til. For Clark, a contradictions, A is B and not-B, is a contradiction for God and man. So if man sees two statements that are clear contradictions, he knows that on of them can not be God's thoughts. But Van Til seems to say that we should embrace both thoughts as true. This is not only irrational, it's impossible. Once we see the contradiction clearly, we have by seeing the contradiction, determined that one must be false. We already reject the idea that both are true or both are God's thoughts. So Van Til's definition of paradox must not mean contradiction for God or man. And if it does not mean contradiction for man or God, then maybe he should not use the term at all.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I know these were comments in brief, but I'll assume they present the CVT position well. So consider my comments as the criticisms of CVT in brief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 1) To start the broken record again, the centerpiece of CVT's theology, as with all the orthodox was the Creator/creature distinction. Many of his critics do not accept this distinction or apply it inconsistently. The analogue to that was the traditional distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. We can never know what God knows the way he knows it. ...
> 
> 
> 
> The last clause I underline because it's the one that Clark agreed with. But with it in place, what is said to follow, doesn't. For the "way" God knows is eternally - the mode of God's knowledge is different. But content can be the same between God and man - ergo the Scriptures. If man can not know God's thoughts, than the Scriptures are pointless. We can not know them, or what we think we know, is never what God knows. I think that in fact, the Scriptures are God's thoughts, and when we know them, we know the same thoughts God knows. When we know "Jesus died for sin", that is the same thought God knows, even if the mode of knowing is different.
Click to expand...


So then, are God's thoughts successive and tied to expression through language? Are all of God's thoughts contained in Scripture? Do we understand Scripture perfectly or through the lens of Sin?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> We were saved by the shameful crucixion of God the Son on a Roman cross. Luther called this the theology of the cross. Paul called it the foolishess of the Gospel (1 Cor 1-2).
> 
> 
> 
> Shameful? There was nothing shameful about Christ's sacrifice to save us. It was necessary.
Click to expand...


I wasn't going to comment on most of the topic, but I was surprised when I read this. Of course the Cross' _ultimate_ purpose and nature as we know it to be is not a shameful thing but a glorious thing. But in its _temporal_ and _apparent_ state, including how unbelievers see it and _even_ what it represents to us as well, it is the height of shame. This shame in the temporal and apparent senses can be seen in Luke 18:32, in which it was spoken of how Christ "will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon." Likewise, the "even death on a cross" language in Philippians 2:8 is not merely due to the physical torment, but also the public image a cross had in the culture of the time. *Interestingly enough, this temporal and apparent shame (the existence of which is directly affirmed by Scripture) being actually non-shameful in the ultimate and most true sense (which you would likely note) is actually a good analogy for the Van Tillian concept of apparent paradoxes, which people often criticize while fully acknowledging the parallel nature of Christ's public "shame."*

Even so, while we're on this, I think it is important to note that there is in fact also an _eternal_ and _actual_ sense of Christ's shame on the Cross as well, one which, though necessary as you note, is truly shameful in the highest way possible: In Hebrews 12:2, we are told of how Jesus, "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, _despising the shame_, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God" (emphsis mine). We are told throughout Scripture to rejoice in our sufferings, and Christ would have properly done so as well. So then what is this type of shame being spoken of that He did _not_ rejoice in, but rather _despised_? It was His becoming one with sin. It had a glorious _end_ and _purpose_, but it in and of itself was the height of true shame (and in fact the _epitome_ of it by definition, since sin is the breach of God's perfection) so much so that God turned away from Christ at the moment. *In the end, this existence of a true element of shame (and the epitome of shame at that) being at the very heart of the most glorious and honorable act of all time further illustrates the paradoxical (in the Van Tillian sense, that we can never understand it) nature of the Gospel as Dr. Clark was noting.*


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem is the definition of paradox. It seems that a paradox is and is not a contradiction for Van Til.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Patrick asked for sources.
> 
> A paradox *is not* a contradiction for Van Til.
> 
> You know that phrase that Clarkians love to rail on? The one that says, "we embrace with passion the apparently contradictory?" Well, what Clarkians do not quote is the sentence before that:
> 
> "We shun like poison the idea of the really contradictory."
> 
> A paradox, for Van Til, was an *apparent* contradiction, but was never a real one.
Click to expand...


And how do you know when something is an "apparent" contradiction?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem is the definition of paradox. It seems that a paradox is and is not a contradiction for Van Til.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Patrick asked for sources.
> 
> A paradox *is not* a contradiction for Van Til.
> 
> You know that phrase that Clarkians love to rail on? The one that says, "we embrace with passion the apparently contradictory?" Well, what Clarkians do not quote is the sentence before that:
> 
> "We shun like poison the idea of the really contradictory."
> 
> A paradox, for Van Til, was an *apparent* contradiction, but was never a real one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do you know when something is an "apparent" contradiction?
Click to expand...


When it appears to be a contradiction, but in fact is not a contradiction after all.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I know these were comments in brief, but I'll assume they present the CVT position well. So consider my comments as the criticisms of CVT in brief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 1) To start the broken record again, the centerpiece of CVT's theology, as with all the orthodox was the Creator/creature distinction. Many of his critics do not accept this distinction or apply it inconsistently. The analogue to that was the traditional distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. We can never know what God knows the way he knows it. ...
> 
> 
> 
> The last clause I underline because it's the one that Clark agreed with. But with it in place, what is said to follow, doesn't. For the "way" God knows is eternally - the mode of God's knowledge is different. But content can be the same between God and man - ergo the Scriptures. If man can not know God's thoughts, than the Scriptures are pointless. We can not know them, or what we think we know, is never what God knows. I think that in fact, the Scriptures are God's thoughts, and when we know them, we know the same thoughts God knows. When we know "Jesus died for sin", that is the same thought God knows, even if the mode of knowing is different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, are God's thoughts successive and tied to expression through language? Are all of God's thoughts contained in Scripture?
Click to expand...


My point is I agree we don't know God's thoughts "the _way_" He knows them. His thoughts are NOT successive. I said: "for the "way" God knows is eternally". And no, not all of God's thoughts are contained in Scripture. But the thought's that are contained in Scripture do not contradict each other. 



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> Do we understand Scripture perfectly or through the lens of Sin?



We _misunderstand_ Scripture because of the noetic effects of sin. Sin does not distort Scripture, it distorts our understanding of it. And those statements we believe in error, because of the misunderstanding due to sin, are NOT Scripture. Those things we do correctly understand from Scripture, are God's thoughts. They are the same propositional truths for God as they are for man, when man understands them correctly.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia




----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem is the definition of paradox. It seems that a paradox is and is not a contradiction for Van Til.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Patrick asked for sources.
> 
> A paradox *is not* a contradiction for Van Til.
> 
> You know that phrase that Clarkians love to rail on? The one that says, "we embrace with passion the apparently contradictory?" Well, what Clarkians do not quote is the sentence before that:
> 
> "We shun like poison the idea of the really contradictory."
> 
> A paradox, for Van Til, was an *apparent* contradiction, but was never a real one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do you know when something is an "apparent" contradiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I need to say this! Seriously, I've answered this ...._n_ times, Anthony.
> 
> First, as Gabriel said, the obvious answer is that is appeared contradictory, but on futher analysis, it was not.
Click to expand...

So then there are no apparent contradictions. I'm talking about those "apparent contradictions" you said you can not resolve. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> But I'm assuming that you really meant, "but how do you know that the apparent contradictions in Scripture are not real contradictions since you haven't analyzed them and seen how they are merely apparent, not real."
> 
> That's what you meant.
> 
> The answer to that is easy: "God cannot lie." To say A & ~A in the same sense and relationship is a lie. Therefore God does not say A & ~A.
> 
> There are no real contradictions because God cannot contradict himself.



I agree. But are you saying that apparent contradictions are the ones you can resolve, or the ones you can not resolve? Which is it? If the former, then you are saying that you know they are "apparent" contradictions _because_ you can resolve them. Are there any you can not resolve? What makes them contradictions to start with? (Not what makes them "apparent", but how do you know they are contradictions? 

Feel free to document your answers with sources.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem is the definition of paradox. It seems that a paradox is and is not a contradiction for Van Til.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Patrick asked for sources.
> 
> A paradox *is not* a contradiction for Van Til.
> 
> You know that phrase that Clarkians love to rail on? The one that says, "we embrace with passion the apparently contradictory?" Well, what Clarkians do not quote is the sentence before that:
> 
> "We shun like poison the idea of the really contradictory."
> 
> A paradox, for Van Til, was an *apparent* contradiction, but was never a real one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do you know when something is an "apparent" contradiction?
Click to expand...


Because God said/revealed it. The problems that Clarkians have is that they wish to run an external "credit check" on God. We believe what God says regardless of us being able to work out the details.

CT


----------



## crhoades

I don't have time to interact on this thread but I thought I'd toss out a source that has been neglected so far. After doing a search on the word paradox* in the Works of Van Til on CD-rom I came up with 438 hits. Of course not all of these are Van Til's own words but his interaction with others. It is the latter that this article is. It is from 1934 and is entitled: Christianity - The Paradox of God. It is Van Til arguing against someone else's use of the word paradox as irrational. Oh, the irony. It is 18 pages and is included for download.

Here is an excerpt: (emphasis mine)



> *Kantian Antinomies*
> 
> *The root of the whole matter, as far as the conception of paradox goes, lies, we believe, in this fact that Dr. Mackenzie has not clearly distinguished between the apparently contradictory and the really contradictory.* Dr. Mackenzie, as we have pointed out, began his argument about the relation of human freedom to God´s absoluteness, from experience. This forced him to introduce chance or the irrational as an element in the total situation. *This would also naturally lead him to think that the apparent contradictions between God´s absoluteness and human freedom are real contradictions.* In fact, it was only because he thought of these *apparent contradictions* as *real contradictions* that he could introduce the concept of chance at all. If the concept of paradox should mean no more than the harmony of the apparent contradictory it would not help to bring together the discordant elements of his theology.
> 
> Now it is true that Dr. Mackenzie has entitled one of the chapters of his book, Paradox as Apparent Self-contradiction. Yet, under this innocent flag Dr. Mackenzie has brought in the *Kantian concept of a separation between one field, the phenomenal, in which the law of contradiction holds good and another field, the noumenal, to which the law of contradiction does not apply.* [Chris: If Van Til is cognizant of this in McKenzie, then we should give benefit of the doubt that he is not doing it himself.]
> 
> Immediately following his statement that "œperhaps the day may come also when the scientific view of natural selection an the New Testament doctrine of election of grace may be seen to be both sides of God´s activity, and not the horns of an inescapable dilemma," Dr. Mackenzie says: "œThe philosophy of Immanuel Kant gave the prestige of that great thinker´s name to the inevitableness of paradox or antimony in all our thinking" (p. 81). Then he adds a little further on: "œI am not here attempting to defend all the Kantian antimonies, nor the justification of Hegel´s correction-but antimonies are not antagonisms either in the knowledge of nature or in the realm of theology" (p. 81). Here it seems plain that though Dr. Mackenzie does not defend all the antimonies of Kant, he does accept the Kantian concept of antimony. Now Kant thought that as far as the understanding is concerned as good an argument can be produced for the proposition that the world has had no beginning in time. This illustrates Kant´s conception of antimony. *As far as the field of knowledge or science was concerned Kant held that A and not-A, though contradictory to one another, could be proved by arguments in which no such contradiction is found.* From this inescapable dilemma in the field of knowledge, Kant sought refuge in the "œnoumenal" realm in which we need not be concerned with the law of non-contradiction. It was, according to Kant, with the noumenal realm that religion deals. Accordingly, the phenomenal is an aspect of Reality as a whole, religion need not be seriously considered with the law of non-contradiction. In Reality as a whole these contradictions of the realm of knowledge may, after all, each state an aspect of the truth. Reality as a whole is analytic but also synthetic; it is fixed and yet the absolutely new somehow appears.
> 
> *Over against this Kantian view, as it largely controls modern philosophy, Reformed theology has maintained that God is absolutely rational, so that nothing absolutely new can exist for Him.* *Accordingly when we face what seems to us to be antimonies, we do not seek refuge in the realm of the irrational where something absolutely new may emerge, with the result that both of our contradictory statements may yet be approximations to the truth. Reformed theology has never allowed that there is any sphere in which the law of non-contradiction does not operate.* To do that would be to give up its conception of God who "œfrom all eternity did by the most wise and Holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain (s) whatsoever comes to pass." Thus we maintain that the world has had a beginning in time and we deny that it can, with an equal show of truth, be held that the world has not had a beginning in time. In short, Kantian thought denies whiled Reformed theology affirms that Christian theism is intellectually defensible.
> Kantianism and Reformed thought may both say "œantimonies are not antagonisms." *For Reformed thought that is true because, if taken in the Reformed sense, antimonies are only apparent contradictions which are resolved in God.* On the other hand, if taken in the Kantian sense of real contradictions one of the "œantimonies" is true while the other is false. For Kantianism this phrase is true because in the totality of things the intellectual or phenomenal realm in which the antimonies operate is, after all, only one aspect of Reality as a whole. For Kantianism antinimies are not antagonisms because for it truth is relative; for Reformed thought antimonies are not antagonisms because for it truth is absolute. *Kant´s position implies an ultimate Irrationalism while Reformed theology is based upon the conception of God as an absolute, self-conscious and therefore wholly rational being.*
> There can be no peace but only war between these two types of thought. One will look in vain for a clear distinction between these two lines of thought in the writings of Dr. Mackenzie. The main impression created is that he has sought to combine the Kantian-Kierkegaardian and the orthodox-Christian lines of thought, that he has fought to combine the ultimately rational and the ultimately irrational. That was my main criticism. I brought out something of the results of such an effort by pointing to things that lie on the surface. In the present article I have tried to show that the difficulty lies at the very roots of Dr. Mackenzie´s theology.



If I have time, I will collate a few more quotes of Van Til on paradox. Discuss away.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any you can not resolve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any apparent contradictons that I cannot resolve right now? Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes them contradictions to start with? Not what makes them "apparent", but how do you know they are contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about real contradictions. You continue to equivocate on my position.
Click to expand...


I'm asking about how you determine two propositions form a contradiction. I don't care if they are "real" or "apparent". Just explain how you determine that the term "contradiction" applies in a particular case.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any you can not resolve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any apparent contradictons that I cannot resolve right now? Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes them contradictions to start with? Not what makes them "apparent", but how do you know they are contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about real contradictions. You continue to equivocate on my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm asking about how you determine two propositions form a contradiction. I don't care if they are "real" or "apparent". Just explain how you determine that the term "contradiction" applies in a particular case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two propositions form a contradiction if all the terms are used with the same meaning, yet one asserts that something is the case while the other says it's not the case, as a brief answer to the brief question.
> 
> You'd have to be more specific, though.
Click to expand...


Given your definition of contradictory - can two contradictory propositions be true at the same time?

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, you've still not admitted that you were wrong about Van Til. Why is that, I wonder?
> 
> [Edited on 5-23-2006 by Paul manata]



About what specifically? I recall you said I was wrong about what "they" mean to Van Til.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, you've still not admitted that you were wrong about Van Til. Why is that, I wonder?
> 
> [Edited on 5-23-2006 by Paul manata]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About what specifically? I recall you said I was wrong about what "they" mean to Van Til.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said "for Van Til paradox and contradiction were the same thing."
> 
> I quoted Van Til and explained how they were not. For Van Til, then, they were not the same thing.
> 
> "For him" a paradox was not the same as a contradiction. Sheesh! read the quotes Christ just gave.
> 
> Weren't you the one who chided Van Tillians for dying on little hills. You were wrong about what you said regarding Van Til, no big deal.
Click to expand...


So are paradoxes the same as "apparent" contradictions?


----------



## Civbert

Looking at the some writings of Van Til, he said:


> Reformed theology has maintained that God is absolutely rational, so that nothing absolutely new can exist for Him. Accordingly when we face what seems to us to be antimonies, we do not seek refuge in the realm of the irrational where something absolutely new may emerge, with the result that both of our contradictory statements may yet be approximations to the truth.



This seems to dispute what others have said, that Van Til said we are to embrace "apparent" contradictions, or how the "something new" may resolve them in the future, making them "approximations to the truth". At least in this instance, Van Til does not call for the irrational embracing of "apparent" unresolved contradictions.

(I'll return and add the citation when I determine the source).

It's from the file posted by Chis Rhoads (crhoades) the Works of Van Til on CD-Rom. It's in this thread on page three on my list. "posted on 5-23-2006 at 01:28 PM" 

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I don't have time to interact on this thread but I thought I'd toss out a source that has been neglected so far. After doing a search on the word paradox* in the Works of Van Til on CD-rom I came up with 438 hits. Of course not all of these are Van Til's own words but his interaction with others.



Thanks Chris. Where did you get the CD-Rom. Do you need Logos or some other program to search the text?



[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> The word paradox is often used interchangeably and wrongly with contradiction; but where a contradiction by definition cannot be true, many paradoxes do allow for resolution, though many remain unresolved or only contentiously resolved, such as Curry's paradox. Still more casually, the term is sometimes used for situations that are merely surprising, albeit in a distinctly "logical" manner, such as the Birthday Paradox. This is also the usage in economics, where a paradox is an unintuitive outcome of economic theory.



Selective quotation? At the beginning of the Wiki article it says:


> A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition. _Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together._ (emphasis added)



This is exactly what I've said. If it's "apparently a contradiction", either the your reasoning is faulty, or one of the premises are not true ("or can not be true together" - which means they are by definition contrary or contradictory). Funny that. I suppose then a Vantillian will need to decide if paradoxes are "apparent contradictions". 

By the Wiki definition - some contradictions are paradoxes, but not all paradoxes are contradictions. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Since paradox may mean statements that "leads to a contradiction" - it seems un-wise to speak of Scripture as being necessarily paradoxical - since "reformed theology has never allowed that there is any sphere in which the law of non-contradiction does not operate", and this must include Scripture. That being the case, (and Clark heartily agrees) then we confuse people by saying we should embrace the paradoxes of Scripture. We seem to say the Scripture can be irrational. Clearly this contradicts Van Til in the text Chris gave. So does Vantillians still say we should embrace the paradoxes of Scripture?


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I don't have time to interact on this thread but I thought I'd toss out a source that has been neglected so far. After doing a search on the word paradox* in the Works of Van Til on CD-rom I came up with 438 hits. Of course not all of these are Van Til's own words but his interaction with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank Chris. Where did you get the CD-Rom. Do you need Logos or some other program to search the text?
Click to expand...

http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/248/nm/Works_of_Cornelius_Van_Til_CD_ROM

It is the logos format. $49 bucks is a steal for all of his works. Books, articles, lectures, unpublished manuscripts etc. The version of logos that comes with the cdrom is a couple versions old but it still works. You can get upgrade cds from Logos for the cost of shipping to get up to the newest version.

This resource is invaluable for the study of his thought. Hopefully you will buy it in order to bring peace between the camps and exhonorate Van Til rather than seeking for new fodder...

I'm sure an interesting search would be "Clark" to see what turns up! LOL...


----------



## Civbert

OK. So far I've understood the the difference between a real contradiction and an apparent contradiction is that one is real and the other is apparent. I'm not sure how you determine the difference, because apparent contradictions may not be resolvable, although you know they are apparent if they are resolvable. 

It's those unresolvable ones that trouble me, especially in light of the Vantillian command to embrace apparent contradictions. (Or maybe the "paradoxes" we embrace are only the resolvable contradictions??) 

And since both statements of a contradiction can not be true, and apparent contradiction that can not be resolved, involve apparently two or more propositions that can not be true, then we can not believe apparent contradictions without rejecting the law of non-contradiction. 

So maybe embracing apparent contradictions does not mean believing them - or maybe embracing paradox means only believing the apparent contradictions we can resolve (those we know are not real contradictions because we have resolved them).

See, I don't see how you can believe two statements are "apparent" contradictions (of the unresolvable kind), and still say you believe them both. That seems to be a contradiction in itself.


----------



## Arch2k

> All the truths of the Christian religion have of necessity the appearance of being contradictory
> (Van Til, _Common Grace and the Gospel_, 165).



Distinctions of "Paradox":

Rhetorical Paradox


> a figure used to shed light on a topic by challenging the reason of another and thus startling him
> (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 826, 827; Robert L. Reymond, _Preach The Word! _ 31, 32).



Logical Paradox
"A set of assertions that appear to be contradictory, and cannot be reconciled by human reason."

Question: Is Van Til arguing for the first type of paradox (which can be resolved by human reason, or the second, which cannot (but God can)?


----------



## Arch2k

> "Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradictions in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical"
> (Van Til, _The Defense of the Faith_, 44).



It seems to me a bold claim to suggest that our knowledge MUST be paradoxical since Van Til does not know if scriptural doctrines appear contradictory to EVERYONE. Reconciling God's sovereignty and human responsibility may appear contradictory to some people, but it does not to me. So are the two paradoxical or not?


----------



## Arch2k

Does the Bible Contain Paradox? by Gary Crampton


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> "Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradictions in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical"
> (Van Til, _The Defense of the Faith_, 44).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me a bold claim to suggest that our knowledge MUST be paradoxical since Van Til does not know if scriptural doctrines appear contradictory to EVERYONE. Reconciling God's sovereignty and human responsibility may appear contradictory to some people, but it does not to me. So are the two paradoxical or not?
Click to expand...


The only question is at what level a doctrine becomes paradoxical. For we understand that we do not have exhaustive and without it then one will run into a paradox at some point.

Clark hasnt solved the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, he however places the mystery in the proper place, with God. That is nothing different than what Van Til does.

CT


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> The only question is at what level a doctrine becomes paradoxical. For we understand that we do not have exhaustive and without it then one will run into a paradox at some point.
> 
> Clark hasnt solved the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, he however places the mystery in the proper place, with God. That is nothing different than what Van Til does.
> 
> CT



So are you saying that man cannot resolve this paradox (only God can)?

Maybe all of this talk of paradoxes in scripture (that cannot be resolved by men) would be better discussed using an example.

Can someone present one of these paradoxes that men cannot resolve, and then we can argue using that example?


----------



## Magma2

Dr. R. Scot Clark wrote:


> 1) To start the broken record again, the centerpiece of CVT's theology, as with all the orthodox was the Creator/creature distinction. Many of his critics do not accept this distinction or apply it inconsistently. The analogue to that was the traditional distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. We can never know what God knows the way he knows it. In that case our speech about God is always and only analogical. There must be paradoxes. We ought not be ashamed of them. Our salvation is paradoxical! We were saved by the shameful crucixion of God the Son on a Roman cross. Luther called this the theology of the cross. Paul called it the foolishess of the Gospel (1 Cor 1-2).



While the record may be broken, I hardly think your post answers any of the central questions raised by your response. As I see it the question is not whether we can know what God knows in the "œway he knows it," but rather whether or not we can know what God knows as He has revealed Himself in Scripture? It seems to me that you confuse both the *what* and the *how* of knowing. Nobody, GHC included, ever suggested that omniscience was necessary for knowledge to be possible. Conversely, VT has gone beyond orthodoxy in his application of the Creator/creature distinction and has rendered knowledge impossible. So let me ask, you say our speech concerning God is "œalways" analogical, so when we say God is Almighty, Lord, Sovereign, Immutable, Impassible, Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc., what exactly are these terms analogous to? Also, why do you say our salvation is paradoxical? It seems to me that the cross was absolutely necessary for any number of reasons, but most immediately in order that God "œmight be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." I don´t find this doctrine the least bit paradoxical or apparently contradictory in relation to the rest of Scripture. So please show me from Scripture where Paul said that the foolishness of the Gospel is apparently contradictory? Also, please show me where Paul teaches us that the Word of God is analogous and that there is no univocal point of contact between God´s thoughts revealed in Scripture and man´s thoughts as he comes to Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit? Where does Paul, or any other biblical writer, tell us to "embrace with passion" contradictions while calling them only apparent?



> 2) Paradoxes have to considered and defined carefully. A paradox is not an absolute contradiction, i.e., not a contradiction for God.



How do you know? By an appeal to Scripture? Impossible, since, per VT (and evidently you) "œall teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory." So how do you know there is "œno contradiction fo God"? Why not simply conclude, given your understanding of Scripture state above, that God is eternally confused? Further, how do you know that our inability to harmonize various teachings of Scripture is the result of our "œcreatureliness"? Since we will always be creatures it would seem to follow that the apparent contradictions of Scripture can never be resolved either here or in eternity. But how do you know that these apparent contradictions arise from our being creatures and not from our own blindness, ignorance or foolishness and how do you know the difference? By what method do you arrive at which is which? Further, and arguably most importantly, what method do you use to differentiate these apparent contradictions of Scripture from real ones? Is this all just the a matter of your say so or can the average person with his bible in his hand have access to this method? 



> There are no such things. Are there things we creatures cannot explain fully? Absolutely. The relations between the way God understands things and the way we understand them are properly called paradoxical. Attempts to resolve such paradoxes necessarily flow from or lead to rationalism (the identification of the human intellective faculty with the divine or the use of some created rationality to leverage divine revelation).




I think this is very revealing, if only to make my point. You say that "œAttempts to to resolve such paradoxes necessarily flow from or lead to rationalism," but how do you know? Define "œrationalism"? It seems to me you have just prejudiced any and all attempts to harmonize the teachings of Scripture, therefore all attempts at systemization is ipso facto "œrationalism." You seem to admit that all the teachings of Scripture cohere for God, then why would coherence be akin to rationalism for us as we attempt to systematize and harmonize the various teachings of Scripture? Didn´t God give us the Scriptures so that we might understand? Given what you´ve said, I guess not. In addition, it would seem to me that if Scriptures are not logically harmonious, then the veracity of Scripture comes into question since the Confession asserts that the "œconsent of the parts" is one of the central evidences of Scripture´s truthfulness for the meaning of Scripture is "œnot manifold, but one."



> 3) I don't see any necessary logical connection between CVT and the FV.
> 
> . . . The attempt to tag CVT with causal responsibility for the FV is unhistorical and grounded in a series of false assumptions and conclusions drawn from those assumptions.



I disagree since you´ve affirmed many of those same assumptions. Unless you think your own assumptions are similarly false, I think the connection is there for all to see. John Frame said; "œthe doctrine of justification by faith incorporates the paradox of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of justification by faith "“ when fully explained in its relations to the rest of Scriptural truth "“ is just as paradoxical as divine sovereignty." Note carefully, the doctrine of justification is just as paradoxical and contradictory as any other Biblical doctrine in the Vantilian anti-system. Also, note how it is that we come to a paradoxical view of justification. Paradoxes arise precisely when we attempt to explain a doctrine in relation "œto rest of Scriptural truth." For the Vantilian, the doctrine of justification is as resistant to logical harmonization as are all other Biblical doctrines. This is the connection between Van Til´s doctrine of revelation and the current heresies over justification and other doctrines that have emerged in Presbyterian churches. Consequently, it is not surprising to see Frame (and Van Til before him) defending Norm Shepherd and even assuring us that the doctrine of the active righteousness of Christ is a debatable point. Why wouldn´t it be? Since the doctrine of justification is as paradoxical and apparently contradictory as any other doctrine in Scripture, on what basis can you judge a man like Shepherd who both affirms and denies the doctrine of justification by belief alone? Why shouldn´t we conclude that Shepherd has incorporated the paradox of justification in his understanding of justification?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I mean, c'mon, these are not resolutions. (note: all of the above were not examples of paradoxes for me, just illustrating the rather silly way Clark engages in "resolution."



Good Paul, this is exactly my point. Does not Van Til say that these paradoxes can NOT be reconcile using human logic? If you have, then you do not side with VT. (Correct me if I am not accessing him correctly).


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I mean, c'mon, these are not resolutions. (note: all of the above were not examples of paradoxes for me, just illustrating the rather silly way Clark engages in "resolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Paul, this is exactly my point. Does not Van Til say that these paradoxes can NOT be reconcile using human logic? If you have, then you do not side with VT. (Correct me if I am not accessing him correctly).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones?
> 
> Van Til would say that there may certainly be cases where God could give us the information, and thus we could see it resolved.
> 
> I do "side" with Van Til. I mean, let's say that I have some differences with him on the details, I still "side" with him. Do you believe *everything* Clark teaches? *Everything* Calvin teaches (note: you can't since they contradict eachother  )? Even when you do agree, do you agree with every detail? Can't people believe basically the same, but differ in how they argue/apply/etc the situation?
> 
> Furthermore, I've already vindicated Van Til from the charge of irrationality. My arguments have not been addressed and refuted.
> 
> What's going on here is that people are being rebutted, then they pick on a detail, when that get's answered they don;t say, "hmm, okay I was wrong there," but rather they bring up another detail, etc.
> 
> It seems like you guys are grasping at straws just to find one area where I don't answer properly and then you'll jump on that, even though you left the meat over to the side and fought just for a scrape.
Click to expand...


I'm not "grasping at straws", I am trying to discuss. Seriously...can I have an example of a paradox that man is not meant to resolve?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> The only question is at what level a doctrine becomes paradoxical. For we understand that we do not have exhaustive and without it then one will run into a paradox at some point.
> 
> Clark hasnt solved the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, he however places the mystery in the proper place, with God. That is nothing different than what Van Til does.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that man cannot resolve this paradox (only God can)?
Click to expand...


If by solve it means incorporate all the biblical data and all the implications of that data, then no it cannot be solved. Perhaps one person can go farther than another but solved completely, no.



> Maybe all of this talk of paradoxes in scripture (that cannot be resolved by men) would be better discussed using an example.
> 
> Can someone present one of these paradoxes that men cannot resolve, and then we can argue using that example?



Lets stick with God's sovereignty and human responsibility, and once we solve it move on to something else.

CT


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> The only question is at what level a doctrine becomes paradoxical. For we understand that we do not have exhaustive and without it then one will run into a paradox at some point.
> 
> Clark hasnt solved the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, he however places the mystery in the proper place, with God. That is nothing different than what Van Til does.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that man cannot resolve this paradox (only God can)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by solve it means incorporate all the biblical data and all the implications of that data, then no it cannot be solved. Perhaps one person can go farther than another but solved completely, no.
Click to expand...


Ok. This is not what I think of when I think of "solving" the paradox. When I say "solve" it, I mean that it is no longer appearantly contradictory. This does not mean omniscience. 

The sovereignty/responsibility "paradox" isn't a paradox in my mind, but maybe you can formulate what you mean when you say "but solved completely, no". With regards to the sovereignty/responsibility "paradox", what deducable statements can man NOT resolve (i.e. they will always be paradoxical to all man, not just for some)?


----------



## a mere housewife

How can God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet inspire the Psalmist to write that happy is he who takes the little babies of the wicked and dashes them against the stones? How could He sob over the judgment of Jerusalem when that judgment was His own justice and power displayed, to His own glory? How can the eternally blessed God sob at all? How can the eternally self-existent One die? How can the Triune God, forsake God? (I won't believe anyone who says they've solved that one)

I'm glad that Christianity is not so flat that it cannot contain what to a limited mind will be an apparent contradiction, that my God is not so little that He cannot hold in perfect harmony things a finite, contingent mind cannot fully grasp and reconcile.

"œO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jeff,
> 
> Do you "part ways" with Clark?
> 
> If not, then your "resolution" is that "God said man is responsible."
> 
> But no one disagrees with that. That's not where the debate lies.
> 
> If someone thinks saying "God said man is responsible" counts as a "resolution" then I got ocean front property in Arizona to sell ya.



Paul,

We've gone round and round on this. Again, I will be happy to debate this with you (maybe we can even dedicate a new thread to it!), but it does no good to this debate if you admit this paradox CAN be resolved by man. Our differences lie in the paradoxes that only God can resolve. If this is one of them, please let me know, but you said in the other thread that this was NOT a paradox for you.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The Clarkian says we can find out and understand God's ways, otherwise revelation is irrational.



Quote me please. :bigsmile:


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I didn't say that.





> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I mean, c'mon, these are not resolutions. (note: all of the above were not examples of paradoxes for me, just illustrating the rather silly way Clark engages in "resolution."





> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> But, I'm happy to leave it here, since you're now admitting that there's paradox in Scripture, even if we've now or can resolve them.



I do not deny that there are things in scripture that APPEAR to contradict, but I don't see this as the crux of the issue. Rather, the crux of the issue as I see it is the paradoxes that man's logic can NOT resolve (not due to sin, but due to the logic or lack of information given to him).


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> How can God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet inspire the Psalmist to write that happy is he who takes the little babies of the wicked and dashes them against the stones? How could He sob over the judgment of Jerusalem when that judgment was His own justice and power displayed, to His own glory? How can the eternally blessed God sob at all? How can the eternally self-existent One die? How can the Triune God, forsake God? (I won't believe anyone who says they've solved that one)
> 
> I'm glad that Christianity is not so flat that it cannot contain what to a limited mind will be an apparent contradiction, that my God is not so little that He cannot hold in perfect harmony things a finite, contingent mind cannot fully grasp and reconcile.
> 
> "œO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"



Heidi,

Good examples. Thank you for providing them. So then are these the famous unresolvable (by man) paradoxes? I do not believe that they are unresolvable by man, and in fact, men have went to great lengths to show that they are not contradictory, even to man. 

I will try to address them tomorrow, but until then, I will say that I believe that Mr. McMahon does a fine job in his volume "The Two Wills of God" in showing that they are not, in fact, contradictory to man. I would recommend this book everyone.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jeff,
> 
> Do you "part ways" with Clark?
> 
> If not, then your "resolution" is that "God said man is responsible."
> 
> But no one disagrees with that. That's not where the debate lies.
> 
> If someone thinks saying "God said man is responsible" counts as a "resolution" then I got ocean front property in Arizona to sell ya.



You better start digging that ocean, cuz "God holds man responsible is" what Scripture says. And and it says that God is sovereign over all things, then we have two coherent statements. Nothing in these two statements is a contradiction. Case closed. Get out you shovel.

:bigsmile:


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Anthony,
> 
> I've been over this above. Take a breath and re-read the thread:
> ....
> yada yada yad
> .....
> 
> I'll have to bow out of this discussion unless something interesting gets brought up, translated Q --> P.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 5-24-2006 by Paul manata]



Until you can explain how we can embrace contradictions that are unresolvable by man, then Van Til is still un-vindicated. If you want to say that Van Til did not mean for us to embrace unresolved contradictions, or that he was wrong to suggest otherwise, then you've left Van Til undefended. 

Better yet, is to get away from all this "paradoxical" language. It was a terrible idea to start with, and Van Til would have been better off without it. He said many good things, and we can agree on those things. Pushing he (apparently) irrational positions is bad theology and worse apologetics. I'm all for stressing Van Til's solid statements affirming the non-contradictory truth of Scripture, and that God made man in his image, to know and understand His Word. Van Til seemed to say a lot of good solid rational things in the post from Chris, and since I do want to give VT some credit, then that's what I'd like to see done. All it takes is for some Vantillians to admit that Van Til was not always clear, and this whole paradox business was a bad idea. 

Don't you want to emphasis the agreements between Clark and Van Til? Or are you only interested in defending Van Til at all cost. Isn't there anything you think Van Til said that was wrong?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Oooo, yeah, us Van Tillians never knew that.
> 
> The question has been: how can God be sovereign and man be a responsible free agent???
> 
> We all know Scripture says that, I think that's why people have said there's a paradox.
> 
> So, the Clarkian comes here and just restates the problem, calls it a resolution, and then pats himself on the back.
> 
> These threads are priceless!



Paul, you never stated the problem. You said "The question has been: how can God be sovereign and man be a responsible free agent???"

Well what do you mean by free agent. And what does that have to do with being responsible. 

I see you are almost slipping in the non-biblical premise, but it's still fuzzy. Once you make the problem clear, then the non-biblical cause of the problem will be apparent. 

So flesh it out. What is the problem with God's sovereignty and man being a "responsible free agent". Clarify the contradiction.

And Explain the biblical basis for all your premises. What is the biblical basis for saying man is a "free agent" and what does that mean. You should be able to break it all down into propositional forms that show the contradiction, and give scriptural evidence for all your premises. 

Remember, each premise must be be clearly biblical.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Anthony,
> 
> I've been over this above. Take a breath and re-read the thread:
> ....
> yada yada yad
> .....
> 
> I'll have to bow out of this discussion unless something interesting gets brought up, translated Q --> P.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 5-24-2006 by Paul manata]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can explain how we can embrace contradictions that are unresolvable by man, then Van Til is still un-vindicated. If you want to say that Van Til did not mean for us to embrace unresolved contradictions, or that he was wrong to suggest otherwise, then you've left Van Til undefended.
> 
> Better yet, is to get away from all this "paradoxical" language. It was a terrible idea to start with, and Van Til would have been better off without it. He said many good things, and we can agree on those things. Pushing he (apparently) irrational positions is bad theology and worse apologetics. I'm all for stressing Van Til's solid statements affirming the non-contradictory truth of Scripture, and that God made man in his image, to know and understand His Word. Van Til seemed to say a lot of good solid rational things in the post from Chris, and since I do want to give VT some credit, then that's what I'd like to see done. All it takes is for some Vantillians to admit that Van Til was not always clear, and this whole paradox business was a bad idea.
> 
> Don't you want to emphasis the agreements between Clark and Van Til? Or are you only interested in defending Van Til at all cost. Isn't there anything you think Van Til said that was wrong?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I see this as a cop out. I don't see a "defend Van Til at all costs" but a disagreement on the core of man's capacity.

You want Van Tillians to abandon the idea that man's knowledge is analagous to God's due to the Creator-creature distinction. Then, and only then, would they be able to meet you.

Frankly, all I see is silly name-calling repeated over and over: "You embrace contradictions...you embrace contradictions...you embrace contradictions..."

When pressed on the extent of your knowledge, and ability to plum the depths you seem to jump back and forth about whether there is _anything_ that might be paradox. Your solution, to me, is unacceptable: _I_ must change the premises from what I think Scripture has presented until _I_ am satisfied, by reason, that no apparent contradictions exist anymore. Alternatively, I must admit I know nothing for sure about either proposition because Scripture doesn't give me enough information to form premises that don't appear to contradict.

I'm therefore left with the _rule_ that I _must_ keep pushing premises to remove the paradox of God's sovereignty and human responsibility or I must admit I know nothing of either because I was only able to form premises that appeared to contradict given the Biblical data. 

Neither solution above is acceptable so you can heap the "You embrace contradictions..." at Van Tillians all you want but I'd rather admit myself a creature then believe it's up to me to resolve all apparent contradictions or know nothing at all. God's thoughts and ways are completely "searchable" or we know nothing - baloney.

In short, you call Van Tillians to abandon their stance that man's knowledge is analagous as a creature but you offer no credible alternative in its stead to embrace. This is _my_ conclusion as somebody who has never considered himself a "died in the wool" Van Tillian...

[Edited on 5-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> So, if we want to agree that attacking Van Til will get you nowhere, because your attacks are false and misinformed, and that Van Til was not the irrationalist that men like Robbins say he is, then I'm all down with that.



Yes I see that any criticism Van Til will get me no where with you. You are a die-hard Vantillian, and any criticism of Van Til is a call to arms.

I can't agree to say Van Til was not an irrationalist until his personal contradictions are resolved. Simply defending each and every position he appeared to take will only lead to more unresolved contradictions - as this thread has clearly demonstrated. The dogmatic defense of Van Til, does not help the cause, and Van Til would be the first to say so. He'd say that if anything he taught was later shown to be false or unhelpful, then reject it. You can excuse yourself by blaming the Van Til bashers all you want, but it won't help resolve Van Til's issues. There are far too many things that Van Til said (or seemed to say) that were contradictory. Just read some of the paper given by his more rational defenders like Frame. Clearly, there is a lot to be desired in Van Til's apologetics. And I'd hope that a rational person like you might want to jettison the bad stuff and stick with the good. 

Otherwise, you appear to be a Vantillian worshiper, who does not think Van Til can ever go wrong. (Even Van Til seemed to suffer from this attitude - "darn the torpedo's, full steam ahead". We can never admit fault or weakness. Better to slander you opponents and make fun of them, then try to fix the apparent problems in our system.

I enjoy this hyperbole stuff you've introduced me too. I should use it more often. Never seriously address your opponents questions and remarks, just laugh at them and turn it all around on them. Very productive.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> Shameful? There was nothing shameful about Christ's sacrifice to save us. It was necessary.



With all due respect, the point has been missed.

Surely we all agree that Jesus was ritually humiliated, (we do after all, speak of the humiliation of the Son [Inst 2.11.12; 2.16.17] as one of the states of his existence beginning with the incarnation) regarded and treated as a criminal. This is the point of Phil 2 and the traditional Reformed interpretation of the Carmen Christi.

He conquered death through death (1 Cor 15) - that's paradoxical! Just when it appeared to all, even the Evil One, that God the Son had been defeated by sin and death, Jesus the righteous and suffering servant was in the process of conquering sin and death, through becoming sin and enduring a bitter death for us! (John 3:14; John 12:32-33)

He was cursed b/c he was hanged on a tree (Gal 3:13).

He became (or was made to be) sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21)

Christ crucified was a skandalon to the Jews (1 Cor 1:21) because the cross was a social stigma and deeply offensive to them. It represented Roman oppression but also the humiliation of the victim and guilt. 

The whole argument about the gospel being foolishness in 1 Cor relies on the notion that the cross was socially shameful and the paradox is that God used what we regard as shameful and beneath his dignity -- this is exactly the argument used by rationalist Jewish critics to defame Christianity in the early church to which we had to respond by appeal to paradox! This is the basis for Luther's theology of the cross which is fundamental to all Protestant theology -- to redeem his people and reverse their fortunes, just as the flood seemed an unlilkely way to redeem and reverse or marching around Jericho etc. 

The whole history of redemption is full of paradoxes. God continued the line of the covenant through Tamar's deception, through the faith of a prostitute manifested in a lie, Abraham's offer to ritually sacrifice his son, and through the conversion and subsequent ministry of a Christ-hating pharisee.

These are paradoxes, are they not?

Is there nothing about the faith that we cannot explain exhaustively to the satisfaction of any rational man? 

Can we really explain exactly how Jesus is one person with two natures without being two persons or one nature or exactly how God is one God in three persons without being one person or three Gods or how God can be sovereign and we morally responsible (and all these with no contradiction within or for God)? I'm not asking whether we can say true things. That is not in question. What is in question is whether for creatures there are paradoxes, things about which we, because finitum non capax infiniti, must say apparently mutually contradictory things?

To deny that this is the case, seems to me, to verge on denying the biblical doctrine of divine-human relations and the Creator/creature distinction.

I understand that there are two fixed schools in this dispute. Once again I point readers to my essay in the Strimple festschrift (see the p&r website). 

I dispute the claim that CVT's doctrine of analogy is not traditional. See the essay in the Strimple festschrift where I think I proved that it is, unless makes Thomas' neo-Platonic version of analogy "traditional."

The Reformation was not, as has often been wrongly claimed, a war against Aristotle as much as it was a war against Plato's ontological theology. It was a re-assertion of the Creator/creature distinction, that we do not have be God or become God (contra Thomas) for their to be true knowledge of God by creatures.

The Reformation was a rejection of ontic or intellectual intersection with God. We aren't going to be absorbed into the deity, contra Catherine of Sienna or Meister Eckhardt et al. 

rsc


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> Shameful? There was nothing shameful about Christ's sacrifice to save us. It was necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, the point has been missed.
Click to expand...


Dr. Clark,

Consider my "shameful" comments withdrawn. Your other comments where more to the point. I'm not skipping the rest or your post, just withdrawing that one point I made about "shameful" as unimportant and don't want to waste your time with it.

Thanks.


----------



## Civbert

Dr. Clark,

Thank you for your calm approach and thoughtful comments.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> Shameful? There was nothing shameful about Christ's sacrifice to save us. It was necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, the point has been missed.
Click to expand...

 I concede that point.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Surely we all agree that Jesus was ritually humiliated, (we do after all, speak of the humiliation of the Son [Inst 2.11.12; 2.16.17] as one of the states of his existence beginning with the incarnation) regarded and treated as a criminal. This is the point of Phil 2 and the traditional Reformed interpretation of the Carmen Christi.
> 
> He conquered death through death (1 Cor 15) - that's paradoxical!


It's amazing, wonderful, extraordinary. But paradoxical is not the word I would use, because we can understand the requirements, and see why he had to die in order to give us to have salvation. It makes sense, even if at first blush it seems crazy. And to the unbeliever, it will seem foolish because he does not accept the Scriptures.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Just when it appeared to all, even the Evil One, that God the Son had been defeated by sin and death, Jesus the righteous and suffering servant was in the process of conquering sin and death, through becoming sin and enduring a bitter death for us! (John 3:14; John 12:32-33)
> 
> He was cursed b/c he was hanged on a tree (Gal 3:13).
> 
> He became (or was made to be) sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21)


 The Gospel is an amazing thing! That God would deem to go through all that, to redeem us, who merit only His wrath. I would not take anything away from that. 




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> Christ crucified was a skandalon to the Jews (1 Cor 1:21) because the cross was a social stigma and deeply offensive to them. It represented Roman oppression but also the humiliation of the victim and guilt.
> 
> The whole argument about the gospel being foolishness in 1 Cor relies on the notion that the cross was socially shameful and the paradox is that God used what we regard as shameful and beneath his dignity -- this is exactly the argument used by rationalist Jewish critics to defame Christianity in the early church to which we had to respond by appeal to paradox!....


 No doubt to the Jew this was true. Although I thought it was the Greeks who we're considered rationalist. (But again that's an aside, I have not major disagreement with you here.)




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ....This is the basis for Luther's theology of the cross which is fundamental to all Protestant theology -- to redeem his people and reverse their fortunes, just as the flood seemed an unlikely way to redeem and reverse or marching around Jericho etc.
> 
> The whole history of redemption is full of paradoxes. God continued the line of the covenant through Tamar's deception, through the faith of a prostitute manifested in a lie, Abraham's offer to ritually sacrifice his son, and through the conversion and subsequent ministry of a Christ-hating pharisee.
> 
> These are paradoxes, are they not?


Not really. If you mean is it something that seems amazing at face, sure. If you mean it seems extraordinary - I agree. But calling them paradoxes is confusing. I understand what you are saying, but others will think you mean this is all irrational and totally beyond or ability to understand at any level. But the Christian faith is rational, not just for God, but for his elect. These things that were mysteries have been revealed to us. We can understand them, if only at a basic level. Each of these things had a purpose. To show us that God's love for us has nothing to do with our personal merit - he can convert a "Christ-hating pharisee" to use to His glory - to show that He can forgive any sin, and change any heart, and use any person to His glory. That's not a paradox. It makes sense.




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Is there nothing about the faith that we cannot explain exhaustively to the satisfaction of any rational man?


 Some things are hard to understand, some are easy. The important things are clear, the less important are less clear. Some things we'd like answers to, God does not provide in his Word. What He does give us, is perfectly sufficient for "His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life" (WCF 1:6). If we can't figure it out because it "is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1:6) then it's not something we need to know.




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Can we really explain exactly how Jesus is one person with two natures without being two persons or one nature or exactly how God is one God in three persons without being one person or three Gods or how God can be sovereign and we morally responsible (and all these with no contradiction within or for God)?


 Yes. We may not have the perfect answer, but these things can be explained reasonably. Maybe they are hard things to understand, but they are not beyond us because we have the "mind of Christ". 




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I'm not asking whether we can say true things. That is not in question. What is in question is whether for creatures there are paradoxes, things about which we, because finite non capax infiniti, must say apparently mutually contradictory things?


 No, there are no mutually contradictory things. This is a logical fallacy. It's basic logic on the most fundamental level. There is nothing we correctly understand in God's Word that is, or can lead to a contradiction. And since that is the case, then we know that anything we determine to be a contradiction, must not be from God's Word. (This is one of the reason we have systematic theology, because Christianity is a rational system of thought.) It is our mistake in understanding that creates artifical contradictions. The logic is easy, the understanding is the hard part. We may not be able to understand some things, but we can say without reservation, that nothing that is Scripture is a contradiction. Not only does finitum non capax infiniti not make any contradictions necessary from a logical point of view, but the inerrancy of Scripture rules out all together.




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> To deny that this is the case, seems to me, to verge on denying the biblical doctrine of divine-human relations and the Creator/creature distinction.


 To assert that seems to be on the verge of denying the inerrancy of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word as a means of knowledge about God and all things necessary.




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I understand that there are two fixed schools in this dispute. Once again I point readers to my essay in the Strimple festschrift (see the p&r website).
> 
> I dispute the claim that CVT's doctrine of analogy is not traditional. See the essay in the Strimple festschrift where I think I proved that it is, unless makes Thomas' neo-Platonic version of analogy "traditional."


 I'll see if I can find it. Whether is "traditional" is an interesting question. It doesn't tell us if it's correct, but we all know that.




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The Reformation was not, as has often been wrongly claimed, a war against Aristotle as much as it was a war against Plato's ontological theology. It was a re-assertion of the Creator/creature distinction, that we do not have be God or become God (contra Thomas) for their to be true knowledge of God by creatures.


 I agree, all that is need is for God to give us knowledge of Himself.




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The Reformation was a rejection of ontic or intellectual intersection with God. We aren't going to be absorbed into the deity, contra Catherine of Sienna or Meister Eckhardt et al.


 Not sure what that means, "intellectual intersection". Clearly there is no ontic intersection, but we do know God's thoughts because He speaks to us through his Word. The stress on the creator/creature separation seems overdone. We have God's Word, we have the mind of Christ. If we can know anything at all, it's the things God has revealed to us in His Word. I think you would agree.



[Edited on 5-24-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 5-24-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Arch2k

It seems to me that there might be some unclear usage of the term "paradox." We need to be CLEAR.

According to Gary Crampton in his article 
Does the Bible Contain Paradox?, there are two types of paradox:



> According to Kenneth S. Kantzer, editor of Christianity Today, there are two sorts of paradoxes: rhetorical and logical. The former is "a figure used to shed light on a topic by challenging the reason of another and thus startling him"(Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 826, 827; Robert L. Reymond, Preach The Word! 31, 32). The Bible dearly contains rhetorical paradox (compare Matthew 10:29; John 11:25,26; 2 Corinthians 6:9,10).
> 
> Logical paradoxes, however, are altogether different. Here we have a situation where an assertion (or two or three assertions) is self-contradictory, or at least seems to be so. One way or the other the assertion *cannot possibly * be reconciled before the bar of human reason. The hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in the one person of Jesus Christ, unconditional election and the free offer of the Gospel, and God´s sovereignty and man s responsibility, are examples set forth by the advocates of biblical (logical) paradox.



The first type of paradox I accept, the second I do not.

If Crampton's assessment is consistent with that of Clark, then it is clear that Clark would not have disagreed with all forms of paradox, but would reject the form that are unable to be resolved by human reason.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Anthony,

Did you miss the part where I said that the question is not whether we can say true things, revealed things (theologia ectypa)? 

Yes, we can and must confess the revealed truth, all of it, concerning the Trinity and the two natures, but those truths are sometimes in _apparent_ tension. 

This tension is inherent to finitude. If we didn't experience mystery and paradox we wouldn't be humans or creatures. My wife is a mystery to me! My children are a mystery to me. I am a bear of very little brain and what little still works does not intersect with God's at any point. On this see the Strimple festschrift. See Horton's Covenant and Eschatology. 

For God there is no paradox, but he (to the best of my knowledge) has not revealed everything there is to know. For example, God is fully present in Tokyo and Berlin repletively. How can that be? I can't say. God doesn't say. He simply says that he is and it's true. God is absolutely sovereign and causally comprehends all things in his decree yet I make apparently uncoerced free decisions. How can that be? These things are no surprise or mystery to God, for whom there is no mystery, but they are difficult for us.

I don't think that if you or I typed for a million years we could say EXACTLY how the two natures relate. What is revealed, however, is that Christ is one person in two natures. They are not confused or separated. After that, there isn't much we can say (except to elaborate on the implications and to deny heresy) but there's much that God knows that he cannot tell us without killing us.

This is because we cannot know God in himself. Even Thomas knew that. ALL our theologians confess that (except for Prof. Frame!). 

That's why Calvin spoke of God's "accommodation." We've done whole threads on this.

We only know God as he reveals himself. 

Thus we experience epistemic limits. 

Please read the essay in the Strimple festschrift and read Van Asselt's essay on theologia archetypa et ecytypa in the Westminster Theological Journal. He's not a partisan in the Clark-Van Til debates. 

Finally, I can't see how this touches on inerrancy/infallibility unless one concludes that to disagree on exegesis entails denial of infallibility/inerrancy. That would seem to be a non sequitur.

Whatever God's Word says, it says infallibly/inerrantly, but one's interpretation is not inspired and infallible etc. That's an axiom of Reformed theology.

Cheers,

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Definition*

The OED says:



> 1. Rhetoric. A figure of speech consisting of a conclusion or apodosis contrary to what the audience has been led to expect.
> 
> 2.a. An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true.
> 
> 2b. A proposition or statement that is (taken to be) actually self-contradictory, absurd, or intrinsically unreasonable.
> 
> 2c. Logic. More fully logical paradox. An argument, based on (apparently) acceptable premisses and using (apparently) valid reasoning, which leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; the conclusion of such an argument. Freq. with a descriptive or eponymous name.



I think I'm using paradox in the sense of 2a, though 1 also accords with biblical revelation. I don't see why they are not complementary.

There is no question that everything can be resolved in God's intellect.

The question is whether everything can possibly be resolved by the exercise of the human intellect.

There is no question that God has revealed himself and that we can and must know that revelation. That revelation, however, cannot be identified wholly with God's self-knowledge or archetypal (natural and free) knowledge.

It is a fact that our Reformed forefathers spoke of God's revelation as analogical. That is patently obvious in Junius and Polanus and Wollebius to name but three.

I am not jealous for the term paradox.

I'm only looking for a way to account for and protect the unique and inviolate knowledge that God has that cannot be had by creatures, i.e., the Creator/creature distinction.

rsc


----------



## Civbert

Dr. Clark, 

I appreciate your considerate response.

Although I agree with much of what you say in your reply, God is in the details. Maybe it would help if I give you the nut-shell version of what I think is the essential difference between GHC and CVT.

I think it's fair to say that one of the differences between Van Til and Gordon Clark was in their conception of man's knowledge. Where Van Til seem to say there was a qualitative as well as quantitative difference between God's knowledge and mans', Clark said that the difference was essentially quantitative. (This is oversimplified, but it illustrates the key point). 

In Van Til's system, there is no overlap between God's knowledge and mans'. What man knows is a shadow or God's knowledge. For Clark, it is impossible to know anything and it not be the same as God's knowledge. For God knows all true propositions, all true propositions are God's thoughts by definition - because God is omniscient. 

If man can know any true propositions, it must be what God knows. To say we can know the truth, but not know the same truth that God knows, is a contradiction. If X is true, and you know X, it is the same X God knows. 

That we know what God knows, and not some shadow or reflection means we do have intellectual overlap with God's mind. Indeed, there are epistemic limits, our minds have a limited capacity and ability to carry out all the necessary implications and hold all the knowledge God knows. But when we see a contradiction (a violation of the law of non-contradiction) then we know that without question that some proposition in question is false. It's really quite simple. 

All true propositions are known to God.
Man can know true propositions.
Therefore, man can know propositions that God knows.

It's not complicated. There are differences in "how" we know, and "how much" we know. But it's clear that if knowledge is available to the Christian, then it must be the same thoughts God knows. The alternative is we really don't have knowledge, which is irrational, unbiblical, and a rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture.

The connection with the inerrancy of Scripture is apparent. If we can not know anything without error, we can not know Scripture. And if that is the case, Scripture is not God's inerrant revelation to man, for mans knowledge, but it is a shadow of God's knowledge. The shadow can not be knowledge from God. It is neither true or false because it has no univocal true meaning. 

I did find your comments on what we can "say" a new twist on the subject - but I'm only interested in what we can know. Please let me know where you think I am in error. I hope you can explain it in simple terms too (that is, with limited technical jargon) so we can all try to understand what you are saying.

Also, could you please tell me where I can get the "Strimple festschrift". 

Thanks,


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Anthony,

Look at the P&R website. www.prpublications.com

I have to beg off now too much work.

Wir sein Pettler, hoc est verum.

rsc


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Also, could you please tell me where I can get the "Strimple festschrift".



I've searched on P&R's website, and can find no results. I am interested as well.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Anthony,
> 
> Look at the P&R website. www.prpublications.com
> 
> I have to beg off now too much work.
> 
> Wir sein Pettler, hoc est verum.
> 
> rsc



I take it that you either missed my questions to you on the previous page, or you've chosen not to provide answers to the questions I've raised, or you simply cannot answer (which is par for the course for Van Tilians I've come in contact with over the last decade). Without a further response, I'm leaning toward the last option - despite all of Manata´s posturing and chest thumping. 

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Gerety writes,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you know there is "œno contradiction fo God"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, how many times does this question need to get beaten down.
> 
> Pages ago we left this bleeding on the street. back then you should have put a tourniquet on it, it's too late now, it bled to death.
> 
> I think I understand the tactic. ignore refutation and keep asking the same question and hope you'll trip up the tired suspected criminal. Once a confession is forced, run to the media and dance about how you "cracked" the Van Tillian.
> 
> Good stuff!
Click to expand...



Seriously, I would love to see that question beaten down once. But all I get is a bunch of double-talk, evasions and posturing complete with endless boasting that this has been answered and the objection refuted (I'm learning this is the heart of your m.o. Paul). in my opinion you wouldn't know what a refutation entails if it bit you in the putickis.  So, assuming I missed your brilliant post, please reprint your answer or provide a link so I can see it for myself. For what it's worth, given your contradictory methodology and theology, I don't think you can provide an coherent, much less biblical, response. Don't feel bad, I'm confident the professor can't either. However, I have a hard time believing that even his first year philosophy students haven't brought up the questions I´ve raised a thousand times over. Maybe that´s his broken records, which is hardly a replacement for sound, biblical answers. It´s always possible that his students are more worried about getting a good grade then ruffling the good profs feathers. Ya think? 

Hey, Paul, while you´re at it, please provide the method by which you can determine an apparent biblical contradiction from a real one? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> How can God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet inspire the Psalmist to write that happy is he who takes the little babies of the wicked and dashes them against the stones? How could He sob over the judgment of Jerusalem when that judgment was His own justice and power displayed, to His own glory? How can the eternally blessed God sob at all? How can the eternally self-existent One die? How can the Triune God, forsake God? (I won't believe anyone who says they've solved that one)
> 
> I'm glad that Christianity is not so flat that it cannot contain what to a limited mind will be an apparent contradiction, that my God is not so little that He cannot hold in perfect harmony things a finite, contingent mind cannot fully grasp and reconcile.
> 
> "œO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"




I suggest you search some good commentaries since all the difficulties you raise have been harmonized with the rest of Scripture and, I might add, very satisfactorily. Good exegesis is the key to the right understanding of the passages you allude to. The Confessional principle is that the "œinfallible" interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself; what the Puritans (not to be confused with modern Van Tilians who have more in common with Karl Barth) called the analogy of faith. Of course, if you take joy and religious solace in incoherence and an unintelligible revelation, please don´t search any further.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Don't feel bad, I'm confident the professor can't either. However, I have a hard time believing that even his first year philosophy students haven't brought up the questions I´ve raised a thousand times over. Maybe that´s his broken records, which is hardly a replacement for sound, biblical answers. It´s always possible that his students are more worried about getting a good grade then ruffling the good profs feathers. Ya think?



How is any of this relevant to the topic at hand Sean? Respect your elders! Stick to the issue.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Ok. I would be curious to investigate this allegation further. I've heard people argue that Vantil believed there were contradictions or paradoxes in theology. Some argue this is the basis for Federal Vision thinking. I would like to explore this allegation of paradox.
> 
> Is this allegation true?
> 
> Thread rules:
> 1) Use PRIMARY sources to prove or disprove the allegation.
> 2) Charity brothers!!! Stick to this particular issue. No ad homs against Van Til or each other.



Sooo....back to the scheduled programming. I did 1) and we're slipping on #2...so how about a further question to get the ball bouncing....

From what I can tell following this thread, the claims against Van Til regarding paradox/irrationality/neo-orthodoxy etc. (despite sources that counter it) all hinge on the debate between Clark and Van Til on the incomprehensibility of God. Round and round we go discussing God's knowledge and man's and whether they intersect as an explanation/solution to the issues at hand.

Does anyone want to provide *primary source* material that could shed some light (not heat) to the matter?


----------



## Arch2k

Ok. I have been reading more and more on this debate, and from the discussion/reading, I am gaining a better understanding of VT's position. I still do not agree with it, but understand it better.

Correct me if I am wrong.

VT's claim that scripture (even all scripture) is necessarily paradoxical because of the finite number of propositions revealed. In order for a non-paradoxical situation, one must have a grasp of all of God's truths and how they relate to each other. Man does not have this, so when he approaches scripture, and starts deducing doctrines from it, eventually he will run into a paradox that he cannot resolve from logic, not because his logic is faulty, but because he lacks the revealed premises to resolve the paradox. God is omniscient, so he does not lack these premises, and therefore to him, nothing is paradoxical.

Before I continue the discussion, I would like to know if I have this pegged.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Also, could you please tell me where I can get the "Strimple festschrift".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've searched on P&R's website, and can find no results. I am interested as well.
Click to expand...


Can be found here


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Also, could you please tell me where I can get the "Strimple festschrift".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've searched on P&R's website, and can find no results. I am interested as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can be found here
Click to expand...


Thanks!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Anthony,
> 
> Look at the P&R website. www.prpublications.com
> 
> I have to beg off now too much work.
> 
> Wir sein Pettler, hoc est verum.
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you either missed my questions to you on the previous page, or you've chosen not to provide answers to the questions I've raised, or you simply cannot answer (which is par for the course for Van Tilians I've come in contact with over the last decade). Without a further response, I'm leaning toward the last option - despite all of Manata´s posturing and chest thumping.
> 
> [Edited on 5-25-2006 by Magma2]
Click to expand...


Sean, 

I'm on several lists and trying to do a lot of work. i didn't see your email, but I don't get the impression that if I spent 3 hours typing out an answer that it would change your mind. Am I correct? 

You seem pretty convinced that G. Clark is correct and the CVT was wrong. Am I correct? 

Have you read my essay in the (I guess harder to find than I thought) Strimple festschrift?

The Strimple festschrift is here.

Sorry that I gave the wrong url for the company website earlier.

Is P&R Publishing really that obscure/hard to find?

rsc


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

The blatant disrespect for elders in the Church in this thread needs to stop, along with the name-calling. It is making me sick. 

I'm not an avid/hardcore CVT *or* GHC defender/promoter. I think they both have problems, philosophically and theologically. I just study philosophy and claim to be a Christian, one who has spent some time in the last few years studying theology; I'm no expert.

At the end of the day, on this issue, it seems clear "to me" that CVT was closer to the truth than GHC, mainly because of the reasons Paul has shared with us so far.

There is no conceivable way we can know things the same way God does, nor can we understand ALL of what he has to say. God is God and we are not... it really is that simple. Even in glory, this distinction will remain the same.

We will always fall short of the glory of God, and we will always discover that his ways are far and above our own, and his thoughts are unsearchable.


----------



## Magma2

> Sean,
> 
> I'm on several lists and trying to do a lot of work. i didn't see your email, but I don't get the impression that if I spent 3 hours typing out an answer that it would change your mind. Am I correct?
> 
> You seem pretty convinced that G. Clark is correct and the CVT was wrong. Am I correct?
> 
> Have you read my essay in the (I guess harder to find than I thought) Strimple festschrift?
> 
> The Strimple festschrift is here.
> 
> Sorry that I gave the wrong url for the company website earlier.
> 
> Is P&R Publishing really that obscure/hard to find?
> 
> rsc



No disrespect intended, but I'm very busy too and arguably have less time right now to devote to this than even you. Yes, I think Clark is "right" and VT "wrong" on the notion of biblical paradox. OTOH, I am willing to consider that Clark may be wrong too. I'm willing to consider that Scriptures do not provide a logically deductive system, that the propositions of Scripture do not cohere, and that God's special revelation is insufficient and does not supply the necessary and additional propositions needed to resolve any number of seeming contradictions that arise from our study of God's Word. However, Clark aside, demonstrating this position is a pretty tall order even for a phil prof and, at least my reading of the Confession, flies in the face of the Reformed religion. But then again, perhaps the Confession has erred as well.

I don't know when I'll get to your book recommendation, but I confess I find this passing the buck frustrating. I've read Van Til, but Van Tilians told me that I need to read Frame to really understand him. I've read Frame, but another group of Van Tilians told me I have to read Bahnsen. So I've read Bahnsen, now evidently I need to read Strimple in order to find clear answers to my objections. Consequently, you can't blame me for getting the impression that answers to such obvious objections to Van Til's theory is extremely elusive if not just smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> So I've read Bahnsen, now evidently I need to read Strimple in order to find clear answers to my objections. Consequently, you can't blame me for getting the impression that answers to such obvious objections to Van Til's theory is extremely elusive if not just smoke and mirrors.



Just a correction here Sean. Mr. Clark asked you to read HIS article in the Strimple complilation. He is saying that he has already addressed this issue at length, and to consult his mind on the subject already in print.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> So I've read Bahnsen, now evidently I need to read Strimple in order to find clear answers to my objections. Consequently, you can't blame me for getting the impression that answers to such obvious objections to Van Til's theory is extremely elusive if not just smoke and mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a correction here Sean. Mr. Clark asked you to read HIS article in the Strimple complilation. He is saying that he has already addressed this issue at length, and to consult his mind on the subject already in print.
Click to expand...

Further, Sean, you should be grateful that Dr. Clark gives you consideration for your concern after heaping insults at him. You're acting like a child.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Sean,

Frankly, I think Van Til is pretty straightforward - once one gets on to his vocabulary. I don't think he needs to be explained, if one is willing to put in the time.

That said, I think CVT's value is that he re-stated the traditional position, if in more or less idealist vocabulary that is now dated and not always very helpful.

I think that what folk need to read is Franciscus Junius and Amandus Polanus! I suppose most don't read 17th century Reformed theology in Latin. That's why I wrote the essay for the Strimple Festschrift. I tried to save folks time (like 10-15 years of study!) by doing the work for them. To demand that I reproduce it all here for your convenience is unreasonable. 

I really don't think I'm passing the buck. I'm trying to redirect the entire discussion. Trading barbs and quotes about G. Clark and CVT seems pretty fruitless since that's been going on since the 1940's and there's been no progress. In the essay I try to explain why there's been no progress and why, on the current terms of the debate, there can be no progress. I argue that the Clarkians and Hoeksema and Gerstner, having rejected a fundamental Reformed distinction on rationalist grounds, cannot agree with CVT without a revolution in their theology.

I contend that there is a well-established method of doing Reformed theology, in which context we need to understand the Clark/Van Til debate. That context is the distinction between theologia archtetypa et ectypa. 

I don't doubt for a minute (nor did CVT) that Scripture is coherent, on its own terms, that it contains and teaches propositions to which all Christians must submit. 

What is in question is whether the same relation obtaines between every propositionand whether creatures have the same understanding of every proposition and their internal relations as God does.

I think I have contributed to leading this thread astray. We were supposed to appeal to and use primary sources.

Sorry about that.

rsc




> No disrespect intended, but I'm very busy too and arguably have less time right now to devote to this than even you. Yes, I think Clark is "right" and VT "wrong" on the notion of biblical paradox. OTOH, I am willing to consider that Clark may be wrong too. I'm willing to consider that Scriptures do not provide a logically deductive system, that the propositions of Scripture do not cohere, and that God's special revelation is insufficient and does not supply the necessary and additional propositions needed to resolve any number of seeming contradictions that arise from our study of God's Word. However, Clark aside, demonstrating this position is a pretty tall order even for a phil prof and, at least my reading of the Confession, flies in the face of the Reformed religion. But then again, perhaps the Confession has erred as well.
> 
> I don't know when I'll get to your book recommendation, but I confess I find this passing the buck frustrating. I've read Van Til, but Van Tilians told me that I need to read Frame to really understand him. I've read Frame, but another group of Van Tilians told me I have to read Bahnsen. So I've read Bahnsen, now evidently I need to read Strimple in order to find clear answers to my objections. Consequently, you can't blame me for getting the impression that answers to such obvious objections to Van Til's theory is extremely elusive if not just smoke and mirrors.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Ok. I have been reading more and more on this debate, and from the discussion/reading, I am gaining a better understanding of VT's position. I still do not agree with it, but understand it better.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> VT's claim that scripture (even all scripture) is necessarily paradoxical because of the finite number of propositions revealed. In order for a non-paradoxical situation, one must have a grasp of all of God's truths and how they relate to each other. Man does not have this, so when he approaches scripture, and starts deducing doctrines from it, eventually he will run into a paradox that he cannot resolve from logic, not because his logic is faulty, but because he lacks the revealed premises to resolve the paradox. God is omniscient, so he does not lack these premises, and therefore to him, nothing is paradoxical.
> 
> Before I continue the discussion, I would like to know if I have this pegged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty close Jeff.
> 
> Of course since I don't know what meaning you might pour in to some of those words, I, of course, reserve the right to retract.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Paul. Now, what is Clark's difference with this? I'm sure it has been posted before but I am a beginner with the nuances of this debate.

I'd really appreciate it, thanks.


----------



## Civbert

"œWhen then the apparently contradictory appears, as it always must when man seeks to know the relation of God to himself, there will be no denial either of election or of human responsibility in the name of the law of contradiction" (IST 257).

It's things this that Van Til says that I find amazing:

First - it's nonsense: "God is" is all the relationship that God has to himself - man does not seek the relationship of God to himself. 

Second, to say the apparently contradictory *must* appear in seeking anything about God is an unbiblical premise. 

And third, there is no need to deny either the doctrine of election or human responsibility in the "name of the law of contradiction" because *there is not contradiction! 

This kind of confused thinking is why some of Van Til's positions are incoherent. Now if Van Til thinks these two doctrines do not "really" contradict, then he should say so. But he does not say that. He implies that we would have to reject one of them if we were to apply the the law of contradiction to them. But if he can not reconcile these two doctrines, then he can not believe they are both true. 

However, to give him the benefit of the doubt, let's say he can not show they form a real contradiction. He did say it's only "apparent". But if it's not a "real" contradiction - then the law of contradiction is NOT AN ISSUE here. So why does he imply that the law of contradiction has the authority to declare one of them false. 

So is there an apparent contradiction here, or a real one. If real, he has does not believe both doctrines are true. If apparent, then the law of contradiction is not an issue.


----------



## Civbert

"Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradiction in all our knowledge." (Van Til)

Not only does the conclusion not follow - but it is what follows is false.


----------



## Civbert

If Van Til did not reject logic (and I'm say he did not), but asserted that human knowledge *must* find contradiction - then he has undermined man's ability to know anything. Man will never be able to detect errors in his thinking because he assumes that some of his knowledge - that "appears" contradictory - is not "really" contradictory. So when we find "apparent" contradictions - we fall back on the idea that "oh well, Van Til said this would happen, and there's nothing to be done about it". The idea that the only way to avoid contradiction is to have exhaustive knowledge - is an error. It's wrong. Logically it's wrong - and so Van Til is incoherent at that point.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ... people like Anthony, who have not done their homework and don't have a clue about ....



Nice. I like how people jump all over Shawn, then let you walk. 

P.S. My clue (and that's all I need to demonstrate the incoherence in Van Til) were the quotes of Van Til you provided. I think that counts as a "primary source".


----------



## Arch2k

Yet just another reminder to keep this conversation about the topic. I have some thoughts I want to post, so please EVERYONE keep it civil so I don't have to lock this one down.


----------



## Civbert

""œWe have repeatedly asserted that the facts of the universe are what they are because they express together the system of truth revealed in the Bible. What is meant by the idea of truth as found in Scripture does not, as noted, mean a logically penetrable system. " (Van Til)

What are the "facts of the universe"? If this is "scientific" knowledge then he's already in error. If it's not scientific/empirical knowledge, then what is it? Whatever they are, I don't see how the "express the truth as found in Scripture. But worst of all, is the idea that the truth found in Scripture is not "logically penetrable". A system that is not logical is, by definition, irrational. And if we can not even begin to understand the logic of Scripture (we can not logically penetrate it) then there is a intellectual disjunction between man and God.


----------



## Arch2k

Paul,

I need your help. I know you have done this before, but I am asking you to do it again...for my sake. Please give me an example of any syllogism (preferably not from scripture) that where you leave out one of the premises, the syllogism is a paradox. 

I know that I've seen a practical example of this somewhere either on this thread, but I can't seem to find it.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Now is that what Van Til means, Anthony?
> 
> ....
> 
> If even an OUNCE of charity was given to van Til, Anthony would take a time out and spend it studying van Til. The only other option is for Anthony to hold that Van Til couldn't keep his thoughts staright from day to day.
> 
> What seems more likely?



Maybe if you quoted me instead of substituting propositions like "that" for my post, it would be clear what you are talking about. I've only pointed out the inconsistencies of Van Til's positions. I've been charitable to Van Til, as is clear in what I wrote, but you keep missing that. So, I've give VT more than an ounce - but it doesn't save his system. 

As for degrees and position, that's another fallacy. Take Peter Singer for instance. He has a PhD and teaches at a prestigious college, but he is still an idiot and fool.

So while I don't think Van Til was an idiot, I think his system has some critical faults. He's no Einstein, but then who is.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'm confused as to what Patrick wants here.
> 
> Does he want primary sources where Van Til says that all Scripture is paradoxical?
> 
> Does he also want primary sources where Van Til contends that real contradictions are impossible?
> 
> Those have been given.
> 
> The problem that I see is that his thought, as Dr. Scott Clark said, needs the required background knowledge to defend it here.
> 
> We can quote him all day long, but since he was writting using the contemporary language of his time (of the idealists) people will want to understand what he meant, this calls for explanation and putting his thoughts in to our common parlance.
> 
> Bottom line: Van Til said there are paradoxes in Scripture (Christ quoted this)
> 
> Van Til also said that there are no real contradictions in Scripture.
> 
> Maybe I should ask what quotes to you want from Van Til and in regards to what?



I guess what I wanted to know is if Van Til believed there were contradictions as alleged. I've heard this allegation but haven't seen it myself in his writings. So I'm looking for primary sources. It seems alot of people say "Van Til says this" but never quote him. So I'm looking for what Van Til actually said. And then we can discuss if he's right or not.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

So for Van Til, is paradox the same thing as mystery? 

For instance, human responsibility and divine sovereignty to me do not seem contradictory. I certainly cannot reconcile them. But logically I don't see it as a contradiction. If I were to say God is soveriegn, man is sovereign; then we have a contradiction. But God is soveriegn and man is responsible isn't contradictory. This is just one example. I'm trying to work through the definitions here. 

So is Van Til just using "paradox" as a philisophical label for "mystery"?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I guess what I wanted to know is if Van Til believed there were contradictions as alleged. I've heard this allegation but haven't seen it myself in his writings. So I'm looking for primary sources. It seems alot of people say "Van Til says this" but never quote him. So I'm looking for what Van Til actually said. And then we can discuss if he's right or not.



Only apparent contradictions - or counter intuitive but logically disjunctive propositions that seem to be related but not - so they are not contradictions except we can not resolve them even though they do not need any resolution because they are disjuntive. Hmmm.. Makes you a bit dizzy.



Does Van Til himself define "apparent contradictions". My source is not primary.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Paul,
> 
> I need your help. I know you have done this before, but I am asking you to do it again...for my sake. Please give me an example of any syllogism (preferably not from scripture) that where you leave out one of the premises, the syllogism is a paradox.
> 
> I know that I've seen a practical example of this somewhere either on this thread, but I can't seem to find it.


Jeff,

I have an example:


> Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.



Honestly, I think the confusion of reading Van Til is taking portions of what Paul quoted above and taking them singly rather than comprehensively. You also have to understand the _sense_ in which he is saying things and how philosophy has, through the years, related the ability to know anything comprehensively. I appreciate Van Til's language because it affirms that we can know facts, and know Truth, and know that they all fully relate and cohere not because we can determine how all facts and information cohere but because God knows how they do. The Creator understands comprehensively and completely coherently, we intersect those facts and know parts of the whole and know was is true in a limited sense but, again, we know and fellowship with Him who creates, upholds, knows, and purposes all things.

Parsing Van Til when he's using the best language he knows how in many different perspectives to break down the distinction between God and man's knowledge, Christian and pagan philosophy, is not fruitful. It will serve the aim of the impatient to say: "See he believes in contradiction..." but it is petulant and unfair to what he's trying to say.

If one has a systematic notion of how the facts and the whole relate then critique the nuanced difference between the relation of the one and the many but don't engage in silly asciptions that Van Til believes in contradiction.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Listen, I haven't landed one way or the other on GC, CVT, Classical, etc. And this is completely apart from that controversy. Its more like 

But I would say this - 

If my Calvinism "seems" to contradict, then its useless. If I can't explain what I believe without "seeming" contradictory to the person I am talking to, then my explanations are worthless. They may, for a time, appease some if I "sell it", but really, if Packer is going to sell me on antinomies and paradoxes, I'd rather use "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" for a door stop than "seemingly" theological reflection. Its like a pastor who is preaching something he doesn't get from the pulpit and confuses the listener. If HE doesn't get it, and he is trying to get it OUT of his head, then he is not even preaching - he is "philosophizing".

Scripturally, if one says that contradictions are wrong (and they are), then they cannot, at another turn (and that's usually right around the corner) say there are "apparent" contradictions. It would be better to say, "I just do not understand what the Bible is teaching on X because it is contradictory to me in my thinking at this point. I just don't get it. When I clear up that contradiction, I'll let you know my position." Now, to me, that would be honest. 

People are not worth listening to who don't really know what the answers are to the questions they are explaining.

BTW - this is not directed against anyone here. I just saw that you all were having a bit of argumentation going on, and I thought I would chime in - I only have 80 or so years, if I'm lucky, here on earth. If someone wants to throw theological and Biblical things into the box of "mystery" or "contradiction" or "paradox" then I don't have time to listen to them. Its like a Gospel preacher getting up to the pulpit to say:, "This morning you need to know the truth! But on this subject, I'm going to tell you what seems to be truth, though it looks like the opposite of the truth becuase it is apparantly contradictory. It is not apparant to me what the truth actually is here, but I'm going to give it my best shot." (I've heard this too from the pulpit!)

I need to know the truth, not apparently what might seem like it. 

Rich - 

I would never say the Tirnity or the hypostic union are "paradoxes" but rather "mysteries." I can live with a mystery - can't live with a paradox. And they are not the same.

[Edited on 5-26-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Listen, I haven't landed one way or the other on GC, CVT, Classical, etc. And this is completely apart from that controversy. Its more like
> 
> But I would say this -
> 
> If my Calvinism "seems" to contradict, then its useless. If I can't explain what I believe without "seeming" contradictory to the person I am talking to, then my explanations are worthless. They may, for a time, appease some if I "sell it", but really, if Packer is going to sell me on antinomies and paradoxes, I'd rather use "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" for a door stop than "seemingly" theological reflection. Its like a pastor who is preaching something he doesn't get from the pulpit and confuses the listener. If HE doesn't get it, and he is trying to get it OUT of his head, then he is not even preaching - he is "philosophizing".
> 
> Scripturally, if one says that contradictions are wrong (and they are), then they cannot, at another turn (and that's usually right around the corner) say there are "apparent" contradictions. It would be better to say, "I just do not understand what the Bible is teaching on X because it is contradictory to me in my thinking at this point. I just don't get it. When I clear up that contradiction, I'll let you know my position." Now, to me, that would be honest.
> 
> People are not worth listening to who don't really know what the answers are to the questions they are explaining.
> 
> BTW - this is not directed against anyone here. I just saw that you all were having a bit of argumentation going on, and I thought I would chime in - I only have 80 or so years, if I'm lucky, here on earth. If someone wants to throw theological and Biblical things into the box of "mystery" or "contradiction" or "paradox" then I don't have time to listen to them. Its like a Gospel preacher getting up to the pulpit to say:, "This morning you need to know the truth! But on this subject, I'm going to tell you what seems to be truth, though it looks like the opposite of the truth becuase it is apparantly contradictory. It is not apparant to me what the truth actually is here, but I'm going to give it my best shot." (I've heard this too from the pulpit!)
> 
> I need to know the truth, not apparently what might seem like it.
> 
> Rich -
> 
> I would never say the Tirnity or the hypostic union are "paradoxes" but rather "mysteries." I can live with a mystery - can't live with a paradox. And they are not the same.
> 
> [Edited on 5-26-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


Excuse me Dr. McMahon, but if you have time to write all that then you have time for another installment of the Wild Boar Podcast...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Working on that now....


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Paul,
> 
> I need your help. I know you have done this before, but I am asking you to do it again...for my sake. Please give me an example of any syllogism (preferably not from scripture) that where you leave out one of the premises, the syllogism is a paradox.
> 
> I know that I've seen a practical example of this somewhere either on this thread, but I can't seem to find it.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> I have an example:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, I think the confusion of reading Van Til is taking portions of what Paul quoted above and taking them singly rather than comprehensively. You also have to understand the _sense_ in which he is saying things and how philosophy has, through the years, related the ability to know anything comprehensively. I appreciate Van Til's language because it affirms that we can know facts, and know Truth, and know that they all fully relate and cohere not because we can determine how all facts and information cohere but because God knows how they do. The Creator understands comprehensively and completely coherently, we intersect those facts and know parts of the whole and know was is true in a limited sense but, again, we know and fellowship with Him who creates, upholds, knows, and purposes all things.
> 
> Parsing Van Til when he's using the best language he knows how in many different perspectives to break down the distinction between God and man's knowledge, Christian and pagan philosophy, is not fruitful. It will serve the aim of the impatient to say: "See he believes in contradiction..." but it is petulant and unfair to what he's trying to say.
> 
> If one has a systematic notion of how the facts and the whole relate then critique the nuanced difference between the relation of the one and the many but don't engage in silly asciptions that Van Til believes in contradiction.
Click to expand...


I have been thinking about that example myself Rich. I asked for a non-biblical example for a good reason though. What I am looking for is this:

A syllogism of practical things (any will do) where when one premise is left out, the argument _necessarily_ appears paradoxical. When the missing premise is then added, everything is A-OK. This is how I understand Van Til's understanding of paradoxes in scripture, but I want to see if such a creature actually exists before I would ever admit they are a possability in scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeff,

If I could create such a syllogism that was akin to the Creator-creature distinction then I would be God. That's the problem with examples in my estimation. I think Chalcedon is perfect example of something that some would say is paradoxical (and some have stated clearly they believe it is a contradiction based on pagan premises.)


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Just a correction here Sean. Mr. Clark asked you to read HIS article in the Strimple complilation. He is saying that he has already addressed this issue at length, and to consult his mind on the subject already in print.



OK, but I still have to purchase another book by a Van Tilian just to find the answer to a couple of simple and obvious objections raised by Van Til's view of Scripture and epistemology. How about some guarantee that it will be money well spent? If I purchase the book and Dr. Clark has failed to at least to provide a rational method by which we can identify an "apparent" contradiction in Scripture from a real one, since both appear to the human mind as identical, do you think he should be willing to refund my money?


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Listen, I haven't landed one way or the other on GC, CVT, Classical, etc. And this is completely apart from that controversy. Its more like
> 
> But I would say this -
> 
> If my Calvinism "seems" to contradict, then its useless. If I can't explain what I believe without "seeming" contradictory to the person I am talking to, then my explanations are worthless. They may, for a time, appease some if I "sell it", but really, if Packer is going to sell me on antinomies and paradoxes, I'd rather use "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" for a door stop than "seemingly" theological reflection. Its like a pastor who is preaching something he doesn't get from the pulpit and confuses the listener. If HE doesn't get it, and he is trying to get it OUT of his head, then he is not even preaching - he is "philosophizing".
> 
> Scripturally, if one says that contradictions are wrong (and they are), then they cannot, at another turn (and that's usually right around the corner) say there are "apparent" contradictions. It would be better to say, "I just do not understand what the Bible is teaching on X because it is contradictory to me in my thinking at this point. I just don't get it. When I clear up that contradiction, I'll let you know my position." Now, to me, that would be honest.



 AND  



> People are not worth listening to who don't really know what the answers are to the questions they are explaining.
> 
> BTW - this is not directed against anyone here. I just saw that you all were having a bit of argumentation going on, and I thought I would chime in - I only have 80 or so years, if I'm lucky, here on earth. If someone wants to throw theological and Biblical things into the box of "mystery" or "contradiction" or "paradox" then I don't have time to listen to them. Its like a Gospel preacher getting up to the pulpit to say:, "This morning you need to know the truth! But on this subject, I'm going to tell you what seems to be truth, though it looks like the opposite of the truth becuase it is apparantly contradictory. It is not apparant to me what the truth actually is here, but I'm going to give it my best shot." (I've heard this too from the pulpit!)
> 
> I need to know the truth, not apparently what might seem like it.



Without a doubt the single best post I've read on this thread. I simply couldn't agree more, nor could I have said it any better.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Jeff,
> 
> If I could create such a syllogism that was akin to the Creator-creature distinction then I would be God.



I'm not asking for the impossible. Surely we can come up with a simple syllogism of SOMETHING where it appears contradictory with a missing premise, but when added in, everything is great.




> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> That's the problem with examples in my estimation. I think Chalcedon is perfect example of something that some would say is paradoxical (and some have stated clearly they believe it is a contradiction based on pagan premises.)



My problem is that I have a hard time applying something to scripture that I don't know exists (from scripture or otherwise). Scripture doesn't say that this type of syllogism exists, and I can't find an example. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No. I have a gut feeling it can exist, but I don't want to operate off of a "feeling."

For example, Paul Manata gave an example of a contradictory syllogism in the other thread on Paradox:



> (1) "Bill has a pet named Rusty,"
> (2) "Bill does not have a dog." Given only those two sentences, no logician could show any inconsistency between them. But add
> (3) "Bill's pet Rusty is a dog," and you have an inconsistent set.



Maybe we could try adding a premise to this to try and resolve the "paradox." Or a different example. I think the key is trying to find something where a fallacy appears in the 1st set of premises, but the additional premise qualifies the statement so that it is no longer a fallacy.

Clear as mud?


----------



## Magma2

> I don't doubt for a minute (nor did CVT) that Scripture is coherent, on its own terms, that it contains and teaches propositions to which all Christians must submit.



Again, with all due respect, I think you´re wrong on a number of different counts, even in spite of your mastery of Latin and years of study. John Frame writes:



> One might conclude...that Van Til regards Christianity as a deductive system in which each doctrine, taken by itself, logically implies all the others. Van Til, however, explicitly denies this notion. There is no "master concept" from which the whole of Christian doctrine may be logically deduced [Van Til the Theologian].



Notice, if Frame is correct, and I have no reason to think otherwise having read VT, Christianity is not a deductive system and, for VT, "œthere is no "œmaster concept" from which the whole of Christian doctrine may be logically deduced." Yet, this is precisely what the Westminster Confession and the Scriptures affirm when they assert all the parts of Scriptures "œconsent," that is, agree with one another. Jesus put it this way: "œThe Scriptures cannot be broken." It is the consent of the whole (for the meaning of God´s word is not manifold, but one) which provides evidence, through the power and work of the Holy Spirit, to convict men that God´s Word is true. If one rejects the notion that Christianity is a logically deductive system, as Van Til and his many followers have done, then there can be no "œconsent of the parts." While no one denies that sinful men are fallible and often err in both exegesis and when drawing inferences from Scripture, the error of the Vantilians and the Neo-orthodox is to impute error to logic itself. In additon, Van Til and Frame miss even the very heart of the Christian system; the "œmaster concept" is actually a master proposition, the axiom of Christianity itself: The Bible alone is the Word of God. 




> What is in question is whether the same relation obtaines between every propositionand whether creatures have the same understanding of every proposition and their internal relations as God does.



Again, you repeatedly confuse the *how* with the *what* of knowing and end up obfuscating, if not completely missing, the issue at hand. The fact that God´s knowledge of the relationship between every proposition revealed in His word -- and every possible valid inference from Scripture -- is as exhaustive as it is immutable, has no bearing on whether or not, by the help of the Holy Spirit who promises to lead us into "œall truth," we can also come to a right and harmonious understanding of any set of biblical propositions, especially those that may appear to us as "œapparently contradictory." Truth is characterized by the logical and harmonious relationship of propositions, not by "œapparent contradictions," antinomies, or insoluble and inscrutable paradoxes. Dr. McMahon is exactly right when he said; 



> It would be better to say, "I just do not understand what the Bible is teaching on X because it is contradictory to me in my thinking at this point. I just don't get it. When I clear up that contradiction, I'll let you know my position." Now, to me, that would be honest.



That would be honest, but the tragedy is that is not what Van Til or his many followers say. The tell us that we must embrace "“ and embrace with passion "“ these seeming contradictions. They plead "œmystery" with reverence and joy in their eyes like some charismatic mystic. They do not plead ignorance, nor do they answer the real life questions and difficulties even those raised by the recent post by Heidi "œmere housewife" Zartman on this thread:	



> Originally posted by a mere housewife
> How can God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet inspire the Psalmist to write that happy is he who takes the little babies of the wicked and dashes them against the stones? How could He sob over the judgment of Jerusalem when that judgment was His own justice and power displayed, to His own glory? How can the eternally blessed God sob at all? How can the eternally self-existent One die? How can the Triune God, forsake God? (I won't believe anyone who says they've solved that one)



Yet, in face of such difficulties (some easier to overcome than others), the Van Tilian makes ignorance a mark of Christian piety and the height of humility as they attribute their own ignorance to the Creator/creature distinction and command the rest of us to submit our minds to contradictory notions and half-truths. Their anwer to a person like Heidi is; just believe and know that for God there is no contradiction. I´m sorry I don´t buy it. To me this is a proscription for complete ecclesiastic authoritarianism, something you would think all P&R men would be very sensitive and wary of. I guess as the singer said; these times are a changin' -- but at least in this case, we know why.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ..
> 
> For example, Paul Manata gave an example of a contradictory syllogism in the other thread on Paradox:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) "Bill has a pet named Rusty,"
> (2) "Bill does not have a dog." Given only those two sentences, no logician could show any inconsistency between them. But add
> (3) "Bill's pet Rusty is a dog," and you have an inconsistent set.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could try adding a premise to this to try and resolve the "paradox." Or a different example. I think the key is trying to find something where a fallacy appears in the 1st set of premises, but the additional premise qualifies the statement so that it is no longer a fallacy.
> 
> Clear as mud?
Click to expand...


Well that's a great example to show how*adding* a statement creates a contradiction. Ironic.

Now take:

1) God is sovereign.
2) Man is responsible.

First notice there is no contradiction. 

Next, what proposition must be added that makes it "seem" contrary? 

Now ask yourself, does adding the premise make it "seem" contrary, or does it in fact make it really contrary (or contradictory)?

Finally, since the first two are from Scripture, is the added proposition from Scripture?

I think that's really interesting. We start with two completely non-contradictory propositions, and everything a great. But then we add some worldly common sense propositions and BOOM! - we have a real contradiction. 

The first two are true because "God said so". Sounds good to me. Seems like "God said so" is the best way to know something. But I bet whatever proposition you add that causes a contradiction or contrary, isn't going to be because "God said so". In fact, we *know* that God did not say the contradiction-causing-proposition because God does not contradict himself. 

I think that is the case for most "apparent" contradictions in Scripture. We start with God's Word (which contains no contradictions) and then we try to make connections by *adding information* based on un-biblical assumptions or principles. Since we know God's Word is inerrant - then the only way Scripture can "appear" to have contradictions, is by imposing un-biblical information to the Scriptures. Apparent contradictions are the result of going beyond the text - to "discern" things we know can not be Scripture. 

Often this occurs when we first interpret God's word. We impose our worldly principles onto the text of the Bible, so that we misunderstand God's Word. But doesn't matter if it occurs when we first interpret the Bible, or when we try to make connections by adding unbiblical propositions. What matters is that at some point we have erred, and we need to pray that we figure out where. 

You can not believe what you do not understand. You do not understand God's Word correctly if it "appears" to be contradictory. Therefore you can not believe what appear to be contradictory in Scripture.


----------



## Civbert

Just want to thank Dr. McMahon and Sean Gererty for their excellent posts. I tend to be silent when I agree, and noisy where I find errors. And were I think I'm doing pretty good at correcting errors and explaining things, I read what you both have posted and I see I'm just a technician, pointing out some details. You both have really gotten to the heart of the matter, in a Scriptural and loving manor. Thanks! I pray the God overcomes stubborn hearts (including mine) so that we can all come to a fuller understanding and knowledge of Him.


----------



## Magma2

> Now take:
> 
> 1) God is sovereign.
> 2) Man is responsible.
> 
> First notice there is no contradiction.
> 
> Next, what proposition must be added that makes it "seem" contrary?
> 
> Now ask yourself, does adding the premise make it "seem" contrary, or does it in fact make it really contrary (or contradictory)?
> 
> Finally, since the first two are from Scripture, is the added proposition from Scripture?
> 
> ... I think that is the case for most "apparent" contradictions in Scripture. We start with God's Word (which contains no contradictions) and then we try to make connections by *adding information* based on un-biblical assumptions or principles.



I think you´re exactly right Anthony. in my opinion the way the above is generally presented below with the hidden implied assumptions provided:

1) God is sovereign and sovereignty implies that God controls whatsoever comes to pass even the sinful thoughts and actions of men.

2) Man is responsible and responsibility implies and necessitates a free and undetermined will.

1) asserts that man has no free will, 2) asserts that free will is necessary for man to be responsible, therefore man´s will cannot be free and not free in the same sense, hence a contradiction.

An attempted and popular solution is that God doesn't really control "whatsover" comes to pass, particularly evil (the "Arminian" solution). Of course, the problem with this "solution" is that the God of Scripture is lost in the process. The solution to the problem, which Clark solved (see "œGod and Evil: The Problem Solved"), is to show that responsibility does not entail or imply a free and undetermined will. The Van Tilian will say that Scripture teaches both 1) & 2) and we must embrace both premises complete with their implied assumptions.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Just want to thank Dr. McMahon and Sean Gererty for their excellent posts.



Thank you Anthony.


----------



## Don

Sorry but I just don't see why "Clarkians" keep harping on this issue. Matt, that is a caricature of the actual position you were referring to while preaching on the previous page. 

Jeff, I haven't seen Sean give you this example but he refers to it in his article. Since the VT Lists are only available for download now, I'll post the entire entry that Sean refers to in his article. 

After reading that, here's Aquascum's take on part of Gerety's critique. 

Post from the VT List by David Byron on 17 Aug 1999:

At 09:08 PM 8/16/99 , John Kittrell wrote:

>What I consider Common sense still opposes the idea that
>God, as the most profusely logical being of all beings,
>would reveal himself in an illogical fashion.

No such claim is made by Van Til, when he's rightly understood.
And, I take it, no such claim is made by Vern, James, and Greg.
It's not that God "reveals himself in an illogical fashion" but
rather that God doesn't reveal enough to us for us to see *how*
some of the teachings of scripture cohere (though God assures
us that they do, in the proverbial grand scheme of things). It
is likewise questionable whether finite creatures noetically
equipped as we are could handle the big picture, or more of the
big picture, even if God had chosen to divulge more.

In a message now archived at

http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-Sep-1998/msg00032.html

I addressed this issue by defusing the objection that for God
to reveal "apparently contradictory" teachings in Scripture
amounts to God's revealing himself "in an illogical manner".

In that message (for those who prefer the nutshell over
following the link), I provided the following explanation,
which I will paraphrase here in *somewhat clearer* form:

Some sets of propositions constitute *apparent contradictions*.
Among the sets of apparent contradictions, some are actual
contradictions and some merely seem that way. Call the actual
contradictions "Class-A Apparent Contradictions" and call the
ones that merely *seem* contradictory "Class-B Apparent
Contradictions". Class-A and Class-B combined constitute the
set of all apparent contradictions.

Here is an example of a Class-A apparent contradiction:
[a] On 16 August 1999, George W is the front-runner.
'* On 16 August 1999, it is not the case that George W
is the front-runner.
If, and only if, all the key terms in statement [a] have the
same definition in statement , then we would want to insist
that [a] and  are directly contradictory, and that the reason
they *appear* contradictory is precisely that they *are* so.

Here is an example of a Class-B apparent contradiction:
[a'] Someone who stabs a child in the face with a sharp
object is someone who thereby performs an immoral
act.
[b'] Bob is someone who stabs a child in the face with
a sharp object.
[c'] It is not the case that Bob is someone who thereby
performs an immoral act.

On the face of things (so to speak), it *appears* that the
conjunction of [a'] and [b'] stands in direct contradiction over
against [c']. It *appears* that, given the truth of [a'] and of
[b'], Bob *must* be someone who performs an immoral act when he
stabs. And if we had good reason to think that [a'] through
[c'] were the whole story, then we might also have good reason
to find a Class-A contradiction here. However, [a'], [b'], and
[c'] are *not* the whole story. What God hasn't revealed (to
suggest the relevant analogy) are the true statements [d'] and
[e']:
[d'] Someone who is a dentist and who, in the course of
his legitimate practice, stabs a child in the
face with a sharp object that is an appropriate
dental instrument is NOT someone who thereby
performs an immoral act
[e'] Bob is a dentist.

The revelation of more information, in the form of [d'] and
[e'], makes evident that there is *more than one way* to "stab
a child in the face", and that some senses of that phrase
denote immoral acts while some other senses denote acts of
dentistry.

Now, suppose that [a'], [b'], and [c'] were among the teachings
of scripture, and suppose that [d'] and [e'] were part of the
unrevealed private counsel of God. Given scriptural teachings
such as
[a'] Someone who stabs a child in the face with a sharp
object is someone who thereby performs an immoral
act.
[b'] Bob is someone who stabs a child in the face with
a sharp object.
[c'] It is not the case that Bob is someone who thereby
performs an immoral act.

would we be justified in calling the conjunction of [a'], [b'],
and [c'] and "apparent contradiction"? Of course. They rather
obviously appear contradictory in the absence of prospects of
further information. Would we be justified, then, in claiming
that God had revealed himself illogically? Of course not.

Even more important, we would be able to provide a formulation
of [a'], [b'], and [c'] that eliminates the appearance of
contradiction by trading it for an appeal to mystery. Here's
how.
[a''] Someone who "x-stabs a child" in the face with a
sharp object is someone who thereby performs an
immoral act.
[b''] Bob is someone who "y-stabs a child" in the face
with a sharp object.
[c''] It is not the case that Bob is someone who
thereby	performs an immoral act.

In this revision, "x-stabbing" is distinguished from
"y-stabbing" to eliminate the appearance of contradiction. If
Bob is really just a y-stabber, then he fails to satisfy the
condition mentioned in [a''], for he has not been shown to be
an "x-stabber".

Now, if we know precisely how to draw the x/y distinction
among stabbers, then Bob may be exonerated with no appeal to
mystery. However, if we simply *posit* such a distinction
without being able to identify precisely how to differentiate
cases of x-stabbing from cases of y-stabbing, then we posit
*with an appeal to mystery*. When is the Christian theist
permitted to appeal to mystery in his effort to construct a
non-contradictory model of scripture's teachings? Whenever
doing so is warranted by the authority of teachings that
appear contradictory in scripture but (by God's scriptural
reassurances, consistent with his logical self-consistency)
cannot be Class-A apparent contradictions; and never
otherwise.

By means of a *biblically warranted* appeal to mystery,
apparent contradictions in scripture *can always* be recast
in logically consistent, but underdefined, terms. And it is
apologetically useful that the antichristian *cannot* simply
claim that contradictions within her system are Class-B ones
unless her worldview provides both an epistemologically
relevant creator/creature distinction *and* a model of
necessary special revelation. This requirement rules out
quite a few worldviews -- especially immanentistic ones which
must, by dint of their internal structural inadequacy, bear
the brunt of thoroughgoing rationalism and its correlative
irrationalism.

Classical logic is sufficient to express Christian Theistic
theology in consistent sets of propositions, provided one
incorporates (with biblical warrant) denoting terms of which
the denotation is mysterious -- or non-denoting terms as
placeholders for terms that denote what God hasn't revealed.

Van Til is describing a similar predicament when he speaks of
apparent contradiction. He is not discussing logical failure
or limitations to formal logic; Van Til is expounding on
informational limits built into our epistemic environment.
When he says "All scripture is apparently contradictory" in
a most unfortunately worded section header, Van Til does not
mean that if one takes any two teachings of scripture that one
will, they will appear contradictory. Rather, he means that
some such teachings will appear contradictory, and that those
teachings are part of the seamless garment of God's design.
So, one can capture Van Til's meaning, according to my
argument above, by paraphrasing "All scripture is apparently
contradictory" as "Our knowledge of any teaching of scripture
is limited by God and will therefore not be exhaustive, but
will involve some mystery from a human standpoint".

So, Van Til's apparently scriptural claim that all scripture,
including that claim, is apparently contradictory is merely
apparently contradictory; God knows how, but I think we know
something about why.

[Edited on 5-26-2006 by Don]*


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jeff,
> 
> see above, that's an example, it's actually the one I used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not discussing logical failure
> or limitations to formal logic; Van Til is expounding on
> informational limits built into our epistemic environment -Byron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Epistemic paradoxes.
> 
> Anyway, I'm bowing out of the convo.
Click to expand...


Thank you. That is what I am looking for.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Please read my piece; The Evisceration of the Christian Faith @ http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=208 . I interact with primary sources and VT's best defenders.
> 
> This issue, if you haven't noticed, has been a sticking point for me since the days I first came to the Reformed faith, long before the FV reared it's ugly head. I remember a very bright young member of my church at the time gave me a copy of Frame's "œVT the Theologian" just to see what I thought (copied from the North book and originally titled; "œThe Problem of Theological Paradox"). I remember thinking at the time; no wonder Calvinism is in the backwater of Evangelicalism. What I read was sheer nonsense. Now, don't get me wrong, Evangelicalism broadly speaking is a complete wasteland, yet I thought even this was preferable to the nonsense I encountered in the Frame piece. I will say prior to coming to the Reformed faith the only ray of light was from Francis Schaeffer, who, while having some minor problems of his own, still believed Christianity was a rational faith. That has always been my position, even when I first came to Christ after years of a complete embrace of irrationality and sin. I´m quite sure I have more in common with Paul Manta than I care to admit (maybe the topic for another "œcommon ground" thread ? We can swap depravity stories.)  I suppose this is why I find VT and the subsequent developments from his thought so abhorrent, even if not at all surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the article, while well-researched, is very rude and hyperbolic. It comes across as if you're literally foaming at the mouth and thinking of every possible vile thing to say about Van Til and any of his disciples.
> 
> Where is there any sense of gentleness or humility? Why must their views lead all inexorably to a complete and utter denial of systematic theology and eschewing all rational deduction?
> 
> At best, you demonstrate that you fall into the slippery slope fallacy and assume that all who adopt the Van Tillian apologetic must think and do the absolute worst that could come from what you perceive as the _reductio ad absurdum_ of their position.
> 
> You don't even _attempt_ to recognize that there are Godly men who have the highest view of Scripture and the love of Christ who may be in error.
> 
> I think whatever truth you expose is far overshadowed by the lack of love you show for the brethren in heaping unfair insult after unfair insult. I don't know why you're always so angry in much of you posting about Van Til and his followers but it is visceral to many of us. It ought to be a warning to your soul at your apparent lack of ability to say "Peace" to fellow brothers.
> 
> [Edited on 5-23-2006 by SemperFideles]
Click to expand...


It's ironic that I have read the same article ( The Evisceration of the Christian Faith, and even note where Sean uses uncompromising and "unkind" language to describe the teachings (and by implication, character) of Vantillians, but do not have the same emotional reaction as you did. 

Sean's writing seems no harsher than the words of Jesus, Luther, Calvin, Paul (the apostle) and even Paul Manata (the Vantillian). Yet you heap praise on these men, and scorn on Sean Gerety - simply because he is harsh. While I do find Sean's prose shocking at points, I think the points he makes are sound (and less shocking than Van Til's teachings). 

And although I've tried to give Vantillianism the benefit of the doubt - trying to find areas of agreement between Van Til and Gordon Clark - it seems that almost every key argument that Sean attributes to Vantillians, has been repeated and verified in this tread. I still see potential areas of agreements between them, but I don't see much desire among Vantillians to stress these agreements. I suppose as long as they assert the idea that we must "embracing apparent contradictions" in Scripture, the differences will be irreconcilable. As long as they don't see the clear problems with the very idea of blindly accepting paradoxes, they will never understand. 

Gordon Clark's teaching was not so different from Van Til's, accept that Clark understood better the implications of some of Van Til's errors. And if you are reading this and take great offense to what I've written, maybe that is because you are starting how some of Van Til's teaching have lead you astray. Just don't let your anger over-ride your reason. 

I'd recommend reading Sean's article again, until you can read it without letting your emotions cloud your judgment. It's important to get past your immediate reactions, and think rationally.

The Evisceration of the Christian Faith

I'd also recommend any of Clark's books, and Francis Shaffer (he shows the patten of corruption as it goes from philosophy to the arts and education and last to theology - that insight can make you more aware of how old worldly philosophies have corrupted modern theology such as the neo-reformed teachings). I'm sure Van Til was a fine person, but he believed and taught some bad theology.


----------



## Don

Jeff, 



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ..
> 
> For example, Paul Manata gave an example of a contradictory syllogism in the other thread on Paradox:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) "Bill has a pet named Rusty,"
> (2) "Bill does not have a dog." Given only those two sentences, no logician could show any inconsistency between them. But add
> (3) "Bill's pet Rusty is a dog," and you have an inconsistent set.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could try adding a premise to this to try and resolve the "paradox." Or a different example. I think the key is trying to find something where a fallacy appears in the 1st set of premises, but the additional premise qualifies the statement so that it is no longer a fallacy.
> 
> Clear as mud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's a great example to show how*adding* a statement creates a contradiction. Ironic.
Click to expand...



You could ask if we are talking about the same Bill and whether there is an equivocation in "Bill". Is it Bill Colletti referred to in premise 1 and 3 while Bill Gerety is referred to in premise 2? or is it just Bill?


----------



## Arch2k

After reading through this, I THINK we would all have to admit that it is at least possible for a paradox to exist in the fashion described by the Van Tillians (i.e. not having all of the premises to resolve the paradox). 

Sean/Anthony, do you agree that it is possible (not speaking of scripture now) that it is possible given this example?:



> Here is an example of a Class-B apparent contradiction:
> [a'] Someone who stabs a child in the face with a sharp
> object is someone who thereby performs an immoral
> act.
> [b'] Bob is someone who stabs a child in the face with
> a sharp object.
> [c'] It is not the case that Bob is someone who thereby
> performs an immoral act.
> 
> On the face of things (so to speak), it *appears* that the
> conjunction of [a'] and [b'] stands in direct contradiction over
> against [c']. It *appears* that, given the truth of [a'] and of
> [b'], Bob *must* be someone who performs an immoral act when he
> stabs. And if we had good reason to think that [a'] through
> [c'] were the whole story, then we might also have good reason
> to find a Class-A contradiction here. However, [a'], [b'], and
> [c'] are *not* the whole story. What God hasn't revealed (to
> suggest the relevant analogy) are the true statements [d'] and
> [e']:
> [d'] Someone who is a dentist and who, in the course of
> his legitimate practice, stabs a child in the
> face with a sharp object that is an appropriate
> dental instrument is NOT someone who thereby
> performs an immoral act
> [e'] Bob is a dentist.
> 
> The revelation of more information, in the form of [d'] and
> [e'], makes evident that there is *more than one way* to "stab
> a child in the face", and that some senses of that phrase
> denote immoral acts while some other senses denote acts of
> dentistry.



If this is the case, then the next question would be, does such a creature exist in scripture?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> After reading through this, I THINK we would all have to admit that it is at least possible for a paradox to exist in the fashion described by the Van Tillians (i.e. not having all of the premises to resolve the paradox).
> 
> Sean/Anthony, do you agree that it is possible (not speaking of scripture now) that it is possible given this example?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a Class-B apparent contradiction:
> [a'] Someone who stabs a child in the face with a sharp
> object is someone who thereby performs an immoral
> act.
> [b'] Bob is someone who stabs a child in the face with
> a sharp object.
> [c'] It is not the case that Bob is someone who thereby
> performs an immoral act.
> 
> On the face of things (so to speak), it *appears* that the
> conjunction of [a'] and [b'] stands in direct contradiction over
> against [c']. It *appears* that, given the truth of [a'] and of
> [b'], Bob *must* be someone who performs an immoral act when he
> stabs. And if we had good reason to think that [a'] through
> [c'] were the whole story, then we might also have good reason
> to find a Class-A contradiction here. However, [a'], [b'], and
> [c'] are *not* the whole story. What God hasn't revealed (to
> suggest the relevant analogy) are the true statements [d'] and
> [e']:
> [d'] Someone who is a dentist and who, in the course of
> his legitimate practice, stabs a child in the
> face with a sharp object that is an appropriate
> dental instrument is NOT someone who thereby
> performs an immoral act
> [e'] Bob is a dentist.
> 
> The revelation of more information, in the form of [d'] and
> [e'], makes evident that there is *more than one way* to "stab
> a child in the face", and that some senses of that phrase
> denote immoral acts while some other senses denote acts of
> dentistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the case, then the next question would be, does such a creature exist in scripture?
Click to expand...


My next question is can you embrace [a'] and the conjunction of [b'] and [c'], and the answer is no. And the addition of information does not reconcile them (make them both true), but tells you that [a'] is false. Of course, you never believed both parts because that was a contradiction.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Don_
> After reading that, here's Aquascum's take on part of Gerety's critique.




Since Manata seemed to make a big deal about Aquascum on his blog site and I've already responded there, I'll reprint what I wrote here:

While I´m hard pressed to answer a man who lacks the courage of his (or her) convictions to put his (or her) real name to his (or her) published pieces, cowards such as Pond Scum seems to have impressed you. For what it's worth I actually looked forward to reading his critique of my piece, The Evisceration of the Christian Faith, when it first came out, but I confess I was disappointed. Scum fails on all fronts and he even accuses me of equivocating on my use of the phrase, "œthe sufficiency of Scripture," even though I couldn´t be more clear; Byron denies the Scriptures are sufficient to provide the necessary information by which we might harmonize the various "œinsoluble paradoxes" of Scripture. Byron´s "œsolution" to the problem, which Scum is correct and I didn´t address simply becasue it is basically a repeat of the same ground I already covered in my section on Frame, is arguably worse and this might have been a mistake on my part. In retrospect, Byron´s solution is considerable worse and even more dishonest than Frame´s. Byron recommends ambiguously redefining key terms so that, at least formally, we can create the appearance that the teachings of Scripture actually cohere while covering our tracks with an appeal to "œmystery" to disguise our inability to unequivocally define key terms. He argues that (since) we cannot know *how* or in what sense God uses particular words, the theologian has biblical grounds to invoke the proverbial and unbiblical "œmystery." This non-answer and imagined "œsolution" imputes irrationality to God who, evidently, cannot express Himself in unambiguous language so that we might understand. In a nutshell, his solution is that since we cannot understand the sense in which God has expressed His mind in Scripture, we should therefore formulate biblical doctrines ambiguously and plead "œit´s a mystery" complete with feigned piety and humility when pressed. Byron´s "œsolution" amounts to nothing more than accusing God of equivocation "“ which is a whole lot worse than accusing me of equivocation.


----------



## Magma2

> >What I consider Common sense still opposes the idea that
> >God, as the most profusely logical being of all beings,
> >would reveal himself in an illogical fashion.
> 
> No such claim is made by Van Til, when he's rightly understood.
> And, I take it, no such claim is made by Vern, James, and Greg.It's not that God "reveals himself in an illogical fashion" but
> rather that God doesn't reveal enough to us for us to see *how*
> some of the teachings of scripture cohere (though God assures
> us that they do, in the proverbial grand scheme of things). It
> is likewise questionable whether finite creatures noetically
> equipped as we are could handle the big picture, or more of the
> big picture, even if God had chosen to divulge more.



Please consider carefully these comments from Don. This boils down to nothing more than if Vern, James, and Greg (and we can assume every other respected and revered Van Tilians as well) cannot harmonize various teachings of Scripture it therefore follows that God hasn´t revealed enough for us to see *how* the teachings of Scripture cohere. The "œsolution" given by Byron and others is that if they can´t solve a particular difficulty in Scripture then no solution is possible. Worse than this arrogance is the assertion that the reason for their failure is that God has failed to reveal enough of his mind for us in Scripture in order for us to "œsee *how* some of the teachings of Scripture cohere. The problem is not our own inability, blindness, stupidity or even foolishness, although we feign humility and admit that we probably couldn´t handle the "œbig picture" even if God has revealed it to us, rather it is God´s fault for not revealing enough information so that we might see or understand. 

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? It turns out that Van Tilian humility and their affirmation of their own "œcreaturiliness"is nothing more than sinful pride and of the worst kind. Paul called the Scriptures "œthe perfect" (1 Cor. 13:10) and he said; "œAll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." While we all patiently wait for an answer to Jeff´s question to see whether or not any Van Tilian here or anywhere can provide a biblical parallel to Byron´s "œface stabber" scenario, I would also ask what are the consequences of Byron´s scenario as we "œearnestly contend for the faith?" We could not even judge, much less correct, the actions of a "œface stabber," given Byron´s scenario. So what happens when we try to make judgments or to draw inferences from Scripture? If Scripture is inherently insufficient, as Byron, Don, Manata and other argue, if one doctrine will invariably appear to be the contradictory of another, as Van Til asserts, which side of any given Biblical contradiction will serve the various functions Paul outlines above? It seems, despite their explicit denials, that both Christ and Paul did speak "œYes and No." Can there really be any wonder why it took the faculty and administrators of Westminister East seven years before they were able to finally rid themselves of Norm Shepherd even if it was too little too late? Why John Frame still defends Shepherd and thinks the imputation of Christ´s active righteousness by faith alone is a debatable point. I´m confident Van Tilians wouldn´t be any more effective if Shepherd was caught actually stabbing students in the face, which would have been considerably less destructive and harmful.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Don_
> After reading that, here's Aquascum's take on part of Gerety's critique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Manata seemed to make a big deal about Aquascum on his blog site and I've already responded there, I'll reprint what I wrote here:
> 
> While I´m hard pressed to answer a man who lacks the courage of his (or her) convictions to put his (or her) real name to his (or her) published pieces, cowards such as Pond Scum seems to have impressed you. For what it's worth I actually looked forward to reading his critique of my piece, The Evisceration of the Christian Faith, when it first came out, but I confess I was disappointed. Scum fails on all fronts and he even accuses me of equivocating on my use of the phrase, "œthe sufficiency of Scripture," even though I couldn´t be more clear; Byron denies the Scriptures are sufficient to provide the necessary information by which we might harmonize the various "œinsoluble paradoxes" of Scripture. Byron´s "œsolution" to the problem, which Scum is correct and I didn´t address simply becasue it is basically a repeat of the same ground I already covered in my section on Frame, is arguably worse and this might have been a mistake on my part. In retrospect, Byron´s solution is considerable worse and even more dishonest than Frame´s. Byron recommends ambiguously redefining key terms so that, at least formally, we can create the appearance that the teachings of Scripture actually cohere while covering our tracks with an appeal to "œmystery" to disguise our inability to unequivocally define key terms. He argues that (since) we cannot know *how* or in what sense God uses particular words, the theologian has biblical grounds to invoke the proverbial and unbiblical "œmystery." This non-answer and imagined "œsolution" imputes irrationality to God who, evidently, cannot express Himself in unambiguous language so that we might understand. In a nutshell, his solution is that since we cannot understand the sense in which God has expressed His mind in Scripture, we should therefore formulate biblical doctrines ambiguously and plead "œit´s a mystery" complete with feigned piety and humility when pressed. Byron´s "œsolution" amounts to nothing more than accusing God of equivocation "“ which is a whole lot worse than accusing me of equivocation.
Click to expand...

Sean,

I want you to throw down now and put your money where your big mouth is. I want you to display the courage of your convictions once and for all. Let's see you be as courageous as you have been to impugn the OPC denomination and Reformed seminaries.

Enough with the hypothetical "We can't embrace paradoxes or mysteries" from the Clarkians. I want you guys to come out and tell me you don't embrace this:


> Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


Do you believe the above or not? It surely embraces an epistemic paradox.

You Clarkians either deny this ecumenical creed so we can label you as apostate or admit that there is a well-established, and prudent, acceptance of some paradox (or mystery if you like).

If you avoid this and don't address Chalcedon directly then I will consider you a coward of your convictions.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Enough with the hypothetical "We can't embrace paradoxes or mysteries" from the Clarkians. I want you guys to come out and tell me you don't embrace this:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the above or not? It surely embraces an epistemic paradox.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> You Clarkians either deny this ecumenical creed so we can label you as apostate or admit that there is a well-established, and prudent, acceptance of some paradox (or mystery if you like).
> 
> If you avoid this and don't address Chalcedon directly then I will consider you a coward of your convictions.



There is no contradiction in the statement. You seem to believe there is. Please explain why. Spell it out. It's your assertion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Either you are completely ignorant of it's denial on philosophical grounds by many or you are afraid to take it on.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Either you are completely ignorant of it's denial on philosophical grounds by many or you are afraid to take it on.



You're the one who asserted that the statement was a "epistemic paradox". So tell me why. You called it, it's you ball now. 

BTW - and epistemic paradox is either cause by discerning a contradiction, or it means we're too ignorant to figure it out, or it means contradiction in knowledge from one moment to the next (such as happens with the Liar's Paradox)- depending on who you ask. You're choice since you called it.


----------



## Magma2

> I want you to throw down now and put your money where your big mouth is. I want you to display the courage of your convictions once and for all. Let's see you be as courageous as you have been to impugn the OPC denomination and Reformed seminaries.



First, Rich, I´m getting a little tired of your ad hominem remarks. If you can´t deal with the subjects you should remove yourself from the Apologetic boards. The rules of these boards state; "œThis forum is for those who desire to DEBATE and DISCUSS. All others please refrain from this Forum." Clearly you´re too sensitive a soul to engage in theological battles. Perhaps you should stick with the devotional pages? 

Secondly, I have not "œimpugned" the OPC. They´ve done a good job of that themselves in the Kinnaird case and their failure to discipline Shepherd who instead was allowed toleave the OPC in good standing and join the CRC. 

Thirdly, Westminister Cemetery East . . . I mean Seminary . . . is not under the OPC´s oversight or control and is not an OPC seminary. That was, after all, what much of the battle over Shepherd was about. Read O. Palmer Robertson´s "œThe Current Justification Controversy" in order to get up to speed.




> Enough with the hypothetical "We can't embrace paradoxes or mysteries" from the Clarkians. I want you guys to come out and tell me you don't embrace this:
> 
> Quote:
> Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
> 
> Do you believe the above or not? It surely embraces an epistemic paradox.




Chalcedon is fine as far as it goes, but let´s hope it´s not the last word on the subject. I also agree with Anthony and I don't find anything particularly contradictory in it, albeit some of it is simply nonsense. If you´d like to discuss the Definition of Chalcedon, why don´t you start another thread under "œTheology" and begin by defining substance? Thanks in advance.  




> You Clarkians either deny this ecumenical creed so we can label you as apostate or admit that there is a well-established, and prudent, acceptance of some paradox (or mystery if you like).



Hundreds of years of repeating nonsense doesn´t make something true. Robert Reymond writes in his systematic theology something you should take to heart Rich:



> "The temptation, confronted as we are by the great incarnational mystery, is to deny one of the two series of Scripture data [Christ as represented as not knowing this or that matter and equally represented as knowing all things - see Warfield's "Human Development"], and this is precisely what many in our generation have done . . . While I hold the Chalcedonian Definition in the highest esteem, _I do not intend to suggest that it should have been the 'terminal point' in christological reflection_ in the sense that any and all reflection on the Incarnation since Chalcedon has been and is out of order [I guess if it were up to you . . . ]. Dogma, however much revered and however much it becomes time-honored tradition, must be subject in all of its expressions and in all times to the Word of God, and it is uninterrupted research into Scripture that must ultimately guide the church." - emphasis mine.






> If you avoid this and don't address Chalcedon directly then I will consider you a coward of your convictions.



I honestly don't care what you consider me. I just wish you would think more and emote less.

[Edited on 5-26-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Look, you guys have denied that there is no mystery. Unravel it for me.

I don't completely comprehend how the Godhead can take on a nature and still remain immutable.

I don't understand how Christ the man can suffer, be one person, and not suffer in the Godhead.

Break it down for me. I want you Clarkians to show there is no apparent contradiction in ANY of its parts.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Look, you guys have denied that there is no mystery. Unravel it for me.
> 
> I don't completely comprehend how the Godhead can take on a nature and still remain immutable.
> 
> I don't understand how Christ the man can suffer, be one person, and not suffer in the Godhead.
> 
> Break it down for me. I want you Clarkians to show there is no apparent contradiction in ANY of its parts.



I can't show you something that I don't see there. I can't show you "no" contradiction. If you can show me the contradiction, then I'll try to explain it to you - or we will see what part you don't believe can be true when another part is true. As for any mystery, I'm not saying there is none - but its not one of apparent contradiction as far as I can tell.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Look, you guys have denied that there is no mystery. Unravel it for me.
> 
> I don't completely comprehend how the Godhead can take on a nature and still remain immutable.
> 
> I don't understand how Christ the man can suffer, be one person, and not suffer in the Godhead.
> 
> Break it down for me. I want you Clarkians to show there is no apparent contradiction in ANY of its parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't show you something that I don't see there. I can't show you "no" contradiction. If you can show me the contradiction, then I'll try to explain it to you - or we will see what part you don't believe can be true when another part is true. As for any mystery, I'm not saying there is none - but its not one of apparent contradiction as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Weak. You're just being obtuse. You're also afraid to take on Chalcedon.

You have a chance to get rid of mystery. I mean, come on, Clark could have just said the same thing about human freedom and Divine Sovereignty. Go beyond Clark and untie Chalcedon.

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Look, you guys have denied that there is no mystery. Unravel it for me.
> 
> I don't completely comprehend how the Godhead can take on a nature and still remain immutable.
> 
> I don't understand how Christ the man can suffer, be one person, and not suffer in the Godhead.
> 
> Break it down for me. I want you Clarkians to show there is no apparent contradiction in ANY of its parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't show you something that I don't see there. I can't show you "no" contradiction. If you can show me the contradiction, then I'll try to explain it to you - or we will see what part you don't believe can be true when another part is true. As for any mystery, I'm not saying there is none - but its not one of apparent contradiction as far as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weak. You're just being obtuse.
Click to expand...


I can't show you what I don't see. So tell me what _you_ see. Where's the apparent contradiction? If it's there, you should be able to spell it out for me. I'm not going to waste time explaining in detail where there are no *apparent* contradictions - since they are a matter of how one miss-understands something, there could be many possibilities. I'd be guessing at where you're mistake is. I'd have to constructs any number of potential misunderstandings that lead to contradictions and that just silly. Especially since you seem to see them and I don't. So let's have it.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Well at least be honest.
> 
> There's prima facie contradictions. We can begin with:
> 
> God is uncreated.
> 
> Humans are created.
> 
> Let's assume:
> 
> If x = y, then for any property, P, x has P if and only if y has P.
> 
> The Son of God is a member of the trinity and is, therefore, uncreated.
> 
> If Jesus is identical with the Son of God then he is uncreated.
> 
> If Jesus is identical with being human, then he's uncreated.
> 
> Thus the principle of the indiscernability of identicals leaves us with:
> 
> Jesus was both created and uncreated.
> 
> 
> Now, there's a prima facie apparent contradiction.
> 
> 
> Note: these problems we get in to (and they'll get tougher) can be solved failry easily. The problem that the Scripturalist has is that I'm not going to let him get away with conjecture. *EVERY SINGLE PREMISE, EVERY SINGLE PHILOSOPHICAL POINT OF ANALYSIS IN TO THESE CONCEPTS, EVERY THING, will be placed before the bar that CLARK HIMSELF has set. That is, I'm gonna be a pain and ask how EVERY SINGLE word, proposition, definition, etc, can be KNOWN on Scripturalist principles.
> 
> 
> My main point, for starting this out, was to show that almost anyone can see some prima facie paradoxes.
> 
> Jesus is ONE person and so ONE person is both x and ~x, remember the identicals argument. If Jesus is IDENTICAL to the Son of God then Jesus must have all properties the Son of God had. Also if Jesus is identical to man the he must have the essential human properties (i.e., sin nature is not essential), i.e., being made in the image of God (man would not be man if he was not made in the image of God). The Son of God is not "made in the image of God, thus:
> 
> Jesus is both made and not made in the image of God, i.e., one person is both x and ~x.
> 
> 
> Now, let's have some fun.



Your conclusion: "Jesus is both made and not made in the image of God, i.e., one person is both x and ~x." 

The person of Jesus was not created, the nature of Jesus was. 

Jesus has two natures. The human nature was created, the Godly nature was not created. (Recall that Jesus did not always have a "human" nature.) All things that are, were created, and that includes Jesus' human nature.


If you think my answer is not Scriptural, please tell me where. Otherwise, I'll have to dig up all the references. Which I will if you want to drag this out. I certainly would benefit from searching the Word. But if you want to go that route - then list the rest of the "apparent" contradictions so other's can take a crack. And you'll have to show some patients because I'm not going to do this all night. It may be tomorrow or next week before I can justify the time.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> I want you to throw down now and put your money where your big mouth is. I want you to display the courage of your convictions once and for all. Let's see you be as courageous as you have been to impugn the OPC denomination and Reformed seminaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, Rich, I´m getting a little tired of your ad hominem remarks.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...ad hominem...that reminds me of somebody...




> Secondly, I have not "œimpugned" the OPC. They´ve done a good job of that themselves in the Kinnaird case and their failure to discipline Shepherd who instead was allowed toleave the OPC in good standing and join the CRC.



I can't think of who....



> Thirdly, Westminister Cemetery East . . . I mean Seminary . . . is not under the OPC´s oversight or control and is not an OPC seminary. That was, after all, what much of the battle over Shepherd was about. Read O. Palmer Robertson´s "œThe Current Justification Controversy" in order to get up to speed.



Who could it be?!!!



> Chalcedon is fine as far as it goes, but let´s hope it´s not the last word on the subject. I also agree with Anthony and I don't find anything particularly contradictory in it, albeit some of it is simply nonsense.


At last we hear it! Clarkians will even call the Ecumenical Creeds nonsense.

Which parts are nonsense Sean. Paul has taken this issue up. If the MODS decide to break this off so be it. Have the courage of your convictions to remove all paradox. I think this will simply reveal that you are not Orthodox in your belief and should likely be banned from this forum.

Honestly, I think you need to repent of your intellectual arrogance.

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Rich, (and all parties),

Tone down the rhetoric.

This is not a request.

Peace, brethren, or the thread will be closed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Roger,

MODS: Request the Chalcedon discussion be broken off into a new thread.

I want to give Sean a chance to reveal whether or not he is orthodox. What he has posted would be enough to bring a Minister up on charges.

Never mind. I got it...

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Roger,
> 
> MODS: Request the Chalcedon discussion be broken off into a new thread.
> 
> I want to give Sean a chance to reveal whether or not he is orthodox. What he has posted would be enough to bring a Minister up on charges.



I'd like to give you a chance to define substance. Let me know when you're ready.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Paul,

Just as a note of help: most, if not all the theologians in the RPCGA are Clarkians. They have been Clarkians longer than you and I have been Christians, or maybe even alive in general.

I asked them about "Scripturalism." If "I" am not in the Bible, then how do I know I exist? - thus Clark seems to be silly there if only the Bible is the Word of God in the way Clark seemed to demonstrate it.

They answered very simply that such was not what Clark taught. They say that "men" are in the Bible, and thus they would never resort, nor did Clark, to absurdity in saying that your name has to be there. We know men exist because God created them, they have children, and they continue to exist. We don't need our name there, etc. HTis would go for anything we find that is extrapolated: trees, works of art, craftsmanship, industry, animals, creeping things, birds, the world, stars, etc.

Just an FYI from the "Clarkians."


----------



## Don

Matt, 




> They answered very simply that such was not what Clark taught. They say that "men" are in the Bible, and thus they would never resort, nor did Clark, to absurdity in saying that your name has to be there. We know men exist because God created them, they have children, and they continue to exist. We don't need our name there, etc. HTis would go for anything we find that is extrapolated: trees, works of art, craftsmanship, industry, animals, creeping things, birds, the world, stars, etc.



The critique is more along these lines:

"Men" may be in the Bible, but *certain or particular* men are not in the Bible. Assuming Scripturalism, how do I connect 'men' in the Bible to a particular man outside the Bible in order to know that I am a man? Unless you adopt some form of occassionalism, it would seem that the inferences used in determining whether you were a man would not be stated in or deducible from Scripture since you'll have to appeal to something outside of Scripture in order to make that determination. Thus you would forfeit Scripturalism. 

Don


[Edited on 5-27-2006 by Don]


----------



## Magma2

> Jesus was both created and uncreated.
> 
> Now, there's a prima facie apparent contradiction.
> 
> . . . Jesus is both made and not made in the image of God, i.e., one person is both x and ~x.
> 
> Now, let's have some fun.




Paul "œThe Dane" Manata once again demonstrates that for the Van Tilian the Christian faith is not a rational religion (which is, after all, what Chalcedon was striving to demonstrate), but is rather, at its heart, that Kierkegaardian leap into the absurd. And who said existentialism was dead and buried. Maybe the Van Tilian application is the passion we´re supposed to feel as we embrace apparent contradictions with the religious furor of a pagan praying before his idol. 

Are we having fun yet? 

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Matt,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They answered very simply that such was not what Clark taught. They say that "men" are in the Bible, and thus they would never resort, nor did Clark, to absurdity in saying that your name has to be there. We know men exist because God created them, they have children, and they continue to exist. We don't need our name there, etc. HTis would go for anything we find that is extrapolated: trees, works of art, craftsmanship, industry, animals, creeping things, birds, the world, stars, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The critique is more along these lines:
> 
> "Men" may be in the Bible, but *certain or particular* men are not in the Bible. Assuming Scripturalism, how do I connect 'men' in the Bible to a particular man outside the Bible in order to know that I am a man? Unless you adopt some form of occassionalism, it would seem that the inferences used in determining whether you were a man would not be stated in or deducible from Scripture since you'll have to appeal to something outside of Scripture in order to make that determination. Thus you would forfeit Scripturalism.
> 
> Don
Click to expand...





First, I need to find one of those RPCGA churches. :bigsmile: 

Second, I think Don is closer to the mark, and, honestly, I think Clark only touched on this question tangentially in response to critics who complained on Scripturalists principles Clark couldn't know his wife, etc. Dr. Robbins said some time ago in response to Michael Sudduth, that outside of some sound argument which avoids citing immediate "self-knowledge" or any similar notion like private revelation or anything else, he would agree that we have an opinion that we are men. MS´s objection was that on Scripturalist principles since all men are sinners and since he could not know he was a man, therefore MS could not know he was sinner. To which Dr. Robbins responded:



> So if we have the opinion that we are men, then the syllogism I provided [all men are sinners, MS is a man, therefore MS is a sinner] is neither absurd nor irrelevant; it is right on target. We may or may not be correct in our opinion, but if we have that opinion, if you have that opinion, you are required to believe that you are a sinner. In addition, Paul in 2 Cor 10:5b tells us that we are to take "every thought captive to the obedience of Christ," and this would include our opinions as well as our knowledge.



Clark too was clear, that knowledge, strictly speaking, needs an account and Scripture alone provides that account where all else has failed. More to the point, he too considered many things which most take for granted as opinion, but agreed with Plato that opinion is often as useful as knowledge:



> What account shall be given of everyday "œknowledge" that common sense thinks it silly to doubt? Don´t I know when I am hungry? . . . Indeed, how can I know what the Bible says without reading its pages with my own eyes? . . . But all such criticisms miss the point. The status of common opinion is not fixed until a theory has been accepted. One may admit that a number of propositions commonly believed are true; but no one can deny that many such are false. The problem is to elaborate a method by which the two classes can be distinguished. Plato too granted a place to opinion as distinct from knowledge; he even admitted that in some circumstances opinion was as useful as knowledge with a capital K . . . It is incorrect therefore to complain that the axiom of revelation deprives us of knowledge otherwise obtainable. There is no knowledge otherwise obtainable. [90-91]




And, since this line of discussion invariably gets into a question of assurance simply because if I´m not deducible from Scripture then I can´t know I am saved and assurance is impossible, Jonathan Edwards wrote:



> "It appears also that the affection which is occasioned by the coming of al text of Scripture must be vain, when the affection is founded on something that is supposed to be taught by it, which really is not contained in it, nor in any other Scripture; because such supposed instruction is not real instruction, but a mistake and misapprehension of the mind. As for instance, when persons suppose that they are expressly taught by some Scripture coming to their minds, that they in particular are beloved of God, or that their sins are forgiven, that God is their Father, and the like. This is a mistake or misapprehension; _ for the Scripture nowhere reveals the individual persons who are beloved, expressly; but only by consequence, by revealing the qualifications of persons that are beloved of God: and therefore this matter is not to be learned form Scripture any other way than by consequence,_ and from these qualifications, for things are not to be learned from the Scripture any other way than they are taught in the Scripture." [emphasis mine -- Religious Affections pg 194]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...
> 
> They answered very simply that such was not what Clark taught. They say that "men" are in the Bible, and thus they would never resort, nor did Clark, to absurdity in saying that your name has to be there. We know men exist because God created them, they have children, and they continue to exist. We don't need our name there, etc. HTis would go for anything we find that is extrapolated: trees, works of art, craftsmanship, industry, animals, creeping things, birds, the world, stars, etc.
> 
> Just an FYI from the "Clarkians."



I think Sean was correct, but your answer is related to an issue of logic. Clark held to traditional logic where the A-form (all A is B) logically implies the I-form (some A is B). So you are correct, that in saying that whatever is being predicated of "all men", is being predicated of individual men. 

The "all" of traditional logic means "each and every". And so when scripture says "all men are sinners" then it clearly infers Anthony is a sinner. Anthony does not need to be found in scripture, for Anthony to understand that he is a sinner. Although Scripture does not say Anthony is a man, that's irrelevant. My opinion that I am a man is enough to convict me that I am a sinner, and so that is sufficient for me to see my need for a savior. 

However, modern logic rejects the inference of the A-form to the I-form. The issue is one of existential import. So with modern logic the "all" of "all A" does not mean "every", because there may not be any A to start with! Universal propositions in modern logic may be non-existent! The absurdity of this is apparent. If the prose indicate that the subject is hypothetical, then traditional logical deals with this very easily by qualifying the subject as a hypothetical one. Modern logic can not do this, so it puts an artificial restriction on the logical inference. 

The reason I bring this up is that people who think modern logic has replaced traditional logic can not extrapolate from "all men" to Anthony. They get stuck on the absurdity of existential import. 

And existential import is related to the Van Til's "the one and the many". In modern logic, you can not infer a particular proposition from a universal proposition. You can not go from the "the one" to "the many" because "the one" does not have existential import. 

The problem is this is an mixing of pagan metaphysics with pagan epistemology. The traditional logic, "all" meant "each and every". But the metaphysics had trouble dealing with universals, that seemed to be both "each and every" and yet "one" and couldn't explain why. 

Then along comes modern logic which tried to cleverly join pagan metaphysics with pagan epistemology. Now "all" means "one" in Russel's logic, and Kant said the "one" has no particulars, so it's void. And now you can't infer particulars from universals. Ergo - existential import and modern logic. 

Add to this, I believe, is some "Christian" philosophers have adopted the Aquinas faith/reason dichotomy, and conceded ground to modern philosophy on the existential issue with appeals to faith apart from reason. The said that "the one and the many" solution was an "appeal to mystery" in the unity of God. 

So you see, there is a connection between Clark's traditional logic epistemology, and Van Til's solution to the metaphysical "the one and the many" problem. Clark, who literally wrote the book on  Ancient Philosophy, (not to mention Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy ) saw that "the one and the many" was not a problem from the Christian worldview. The answer was to reject Kant and Russell's modern logic and existential import and the metaphysical confusion it caused. Traditional logic deals with epistemological issues without the metaphorical confusion imposed by Russel and Kant and others. Where Van Til's solution was that God, in some mysterious way, is the solution to the Greeks paradox of "the one and the many". 

http://www.christianciv.com/VT_Diagrammed.html

So both are dealing with pagan philosophical issues. Clark just rejected that the "one one and the many" was a problem for the Christian worldview. It's only a problem from the perspective of the pagan worldview that does not have a Creator. The Hebraic view of reality never had a problem like "the one and the many" (it's a false paradigm). The pagan's were looking for a "one" while in the Christian worldview it was a non-starter. I think Van Til's solution to "the one and the many" inadvertently assume a problem that is only one from a pagan worldview perspective - maybe in reaction to people like Kant and Russell.


----------



## Don

Well, I can't see how Anthony's post is revelant, nevertheless, I still have yet to understand how having an 'opinion' provides any positive epistemic value (or any *reason* for thinking he is a man). Why not have an opinion that one is a ball of swiss cheese instead? Neither can be justified on Anthony's Scripturalist position (though he keeps switching positions) or have epistemic warrant on other positions unless they want to concede something to empiricism - not Empiricism, or occassionalism. 

I think this is a powerful objection to their position, but nothing beats the self-referential incoherency charges that have been posted, which I think can be modified for 'other' Scripturalist positions. 

Anyway, I have tried to make it a point not to discuss with Clarkians so this will be my last post. 

Don

[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Don]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Well, I can't see how Anthony's post is revelant, nevertheless, I still have yet to understand how having an 'opinion' provides any positive epistemic value (or any *reason* for thinking he is a man). Why not have an opinion that one is a ball of swiss cheese instead? Neither can be justified on Anthony's Scripturalist position (though he keeps switching positions) or have epistemic warrant on other positions unless they want to concede something to empiricism - not Empiricism, or occassionalism.
> Don
> 
> [Edited on 5-28-2006 by Don]



Since this is an objection to Scripturalism, I'd like to know what the alternative is. What is the alternative Scripturalism that can give epistemic justification for knowing you are a person (male or female). Same standards apply. What's the answer?

[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Well, I can't see how Anthony's post is revelant, nevertheless, I still have yet to understand how having an 'opinion' provides any positive epistemic value (or any *reason* for thinking he is a man).



Opinions have no epistemic value, for epistemology is concerned with knowledge. Opinions, while often useful, are not knowledge.

[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Don

Well since Sean has pretty much proven me correct, I'll indulge once more. 

Anthony says:



> Since this is an objection to Scripturalism, I'd like to know what the alternative is. What is the alternative Scripturalism that can give epistemic justification for knowing you are a person (male or female). Same standards apply. What's the answer?



It doesn't matter if there is an alternative or not. Certainly you should know this. Even if all other epistemologies failed, that tells me nothing about the correctness of Scripturalism. This is a switch and bait tactic that is also used by Cheung if I'm not mistaken. 

The same standards do not apply for 2 reasons:
1) I do not hold to a deductivist or Cartesian epistemology; to critique me along these same lines would more than likely beg the question. 

2) Who says these same standards would apply anyway? Remember this is your unjustified opinion and as a result carries no weight. 

Sean says:



> Opinions have no epistemic value, for epistemology is concerned with knowledge. Opinions, while often useful, are not knowledge.



If you'll notice, I never claimed that opinions are knowledge (another misreading on your part that usually occurs). I said there is not any epistemic warrant or reasons to suppose that one opinion has any more 'weight' than another. One does not have more probability of being more correct than another, not that one constitutes knowledge while the other doesn't. One can have reasons for believing without it becoming knowledge (on some epistemologies). As soon as you try to postulate that one opinion does have more warrant (or is more useful), then you have gone beyond Scripturalism. 

Secondly, you have now become a pragmatist and as a result are trying to avoid the tasks of epistemology; however, the same refutation that is used for them can be applied to you. You say that "Opinions, while often useful, are not knowledge." Really? How do you know they are 'often useful'? What truth value does this have and how do you know it? Also, how do you determine whether the opinion that one is a ball of swiss cheese or a man is more 'useful'?

Don


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Sean says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions have no epistemic value, for epistemology is concerned with knowledge. Opinions, while often useful, are not knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'll notice, I never claimed that opinions are knowledge (another misreading on your part that usually occurs).
Click to expand...



Try and read closer Don. I never said you claimed any such thing. I admit since you seem impotent to offer any real counter argument against Clark's Scripturalism that at this point you'll try anything, however you really need to try and read your opponents fairly. 



> I said there is not any epistemic warrant or reasons to suppose that one opinion has any more 'weight' than another. One does not have more probability of being more correct than another, not that one constitutes knowledge while the other doesn't.




I generally agree. Opinions, while some might be true and others false, remain opinions. Without some theory by which we can tell the one from the other, opinions they remain. However, I think you can demonstrate an opion is false, even if you can't prove a counter opinion is true. 




> One can have reasons for believing without it becoming knowledge (on some epistemologies). As soon as you try to postulate that one opinion does have more warrant (or is more useful), then you have gone beyond Scripturalism.



Some opinions function better than others (after all, look at the wonders of science ), certainly if one is going to come to Christ having the opinion that he is a man will better enable him to see that he is a sinner too. 



> Secondly, you have now become a pragmatist and as a result are trying to avoid the tasks of epistemology;



In your ignorance of Clark and Scripturalism you wrongly impugn my position again. Clark met the task (singular) of epistemology squarely and found a solution based on positing the axiom of Scripture alone. Further, on all else, I'm not so much a pragmatist as a cynic. I agree with Clark already cited and outside of Scripture there is no knowledge possible anywhere.

[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Don

Sean,



> Try and read closer Don. I never said you claimed any such thing. I admit since you seem impotent to offer any real counter argument against Clark's Scripturalism that at this point you'll try anything, however you really need to try and read your opponents fairly.



Right, Sean. You first quote me and then respond. What was it for? A lesson in epistemology. Anyway, opinions can have reasons for being held, though they may not constitute knowledge. And that is simply what I'm asking of you.. Your reasons for holding a functionally superior belief and why it is functionally superior or useful. By the way, epistemology is concerned with beliefs, truth, and justification among other things. 




> Some opinions function better than others (after all, look at the wonders of science ), certainly if one is going to come to Christ having the opinion that he is a man will better enable him to see that he is a sinner too.



Do you remember what I asked of you? How do you know that some opinions function better? Is this opinion too? What can you appeal to? Why have the opinion that you are a man in the first place? Go back and reread what I wrote. You are just restating yourself. 




> In your ignorance of Clark and Scripturalism you wrongly impugn my position again. Clark met the task (singular) of epistemology squarely and found a solution based on positing the axiom of Scripture alone. Further, on all else, I'm not so much a pragmatist as a cynic. I agree with Clark already cited and outside of Scripture there is no knowledge possible anywhere.



Clark did no such thing, but those are nice assertions. Mind proving any of it? Such as there is 'no knowledge possible anywhere' outside of Scripture (oh and let us not forget how to prove it according to Scripturalism). 

Anyway, I'm finished with this. 

[Edited on 5-29-2006 by Don]


----------



## Magma2

> Clark did no such thing, but those are nice assertions. Mind proving any of it? Such as there is 'no knowledge possible anywhere' outside of Scripture (oh and let us not forget how to prove it according to Scripturalism).



LOL  Now we have a Van Tilian who not only asserts that Scripture is insufficient to provide the necessary information to resolve any number of biblical contradictions, which, they mystically label as not real, but also contends that the Scriptures fail to provide an adequate account for knowledge. However, Scripture does assert that Scripture alone (i.e., plus nothing) is sufficient for the equipping of the saints in all things and that if a person does not speak according to the Scriptures there is "œno light in them." We can go on and on. Manata made the same claim as you have Don, but when I asked him to show me what these other unnamed sources of knowledge were that you Van Tilians are contending for, his answer was a deafening silence. No wonder I´m skeptical about other claims to knowledge, they never seem to materialize and their advocates go mute when push comes to shove. Will that be your response too Don? 



> Anyway, I'm finished with this.



I suppose that´s good since all you have been able to offer was a shameful argument by David Byron which explains why Van Tilians are incapable of fighting face stabbers and first class heretics like Norm Shepherd.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

OK children, time is up.


----------

