# The Gospel Coalition on Presuppositional Apologetics



## sastark

Today, The Gospel Coalition posted an article by Paul Copan on Presuppositional Apologetics. Quite frankly, I would be ashamed of an article that depended on such a caricature of presuppositionalism rather than what presuppositionalism actually teaches. Dr. Copan, who is a well known philosopher and apologist, should know better. 

Questioning Presuppositionalism – The Gospel Coalition Blog


----------



## sastark

And, just in time for Dr. Copan's article, is this new post at The Ruling Elder which contains my notes on chapter 1 of Greg Bahnsen's Presuppostional Apologetics Stated and Defended. I think Bahnsen deals with every mischaracterization Copan uses in chapter 1 of his book. 

The Ruling Elder: Notes on Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended by Greg Bahnsen: Chapter 1

(PS- You can now "Like" The Ruling Elder on Facebook, too!)


----------



## MW

There is a link to a short piece by William Edgar at the bottom of the page.

Bahnsen went further than Van Til in departing from old Princeton. Van Til still had a place for natural theology and had at least one of his feet on the shoulders of the Princeton apologetic. Bahnsen rejected that legacy.


----------



## jwright82

That article was embarasing to read. To basically lump all "presuppositionalists" together is just absurd. I will answer questions people have about presuppositionalism but I would ,following Dr. Oliphint, like to drop that name for VanTillianism, beacause I havn't found a better name (I don't like it because it can righfully appear to be claiming slavish devotion to one man, and I will be the first to disagree with him where I feel that he is wrong). 

He uses the name covenantal Apologetics, I get it but I think it is too confusing to a non-VanTillian. Also I get and agree with Reformed Apologetics but I find that name far too abrasive to reformed folk who differ with him. In a curriculum that I am desighning, I don't know if I'll ever get to teach it but I want to have it handy, to introduce apologetics to average pew sitting christians who have no idea about any of this stuff. It is VanTillian through and through, in fact my goal was to make Van Til accessable to the average christian. I will be more pushing the name Engagement Apologetics.

Van Til taught us to engage creation worldview to worldview to see who has the true foundation for anything. We engage the totality of the unbeleiver all the way down to the knowledge they supress of God. We engage our culture and the various philosophies. We engage creation to use God given evidences and reasons for the hope that is withen us. I don't know how VanTillians will feel about that name but it is easily to remember which is what I was going for. All those engagments are fully VanTillian in my mind. 

I appreciate the notes you made on your blog. Very helpful! I have not read that book but I want to. I look forward to more. Thank you for sharing sastark.

Rev. Winzer I believe you have that book _Revelation and Reason_. What did you think about the essay on natural theology? I hope that doesn't sidetrack this thread.


----------



## sastark

Since Van Til (and Bahnsen after him) begin with the truth of God's Word, as testified by the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer, and since those things are clearly taught in WCF chapter 1, I think the term "Confessional Apologetics" is fitting (at least, I've used it a couple times in the last few days).

I'll be posting more notes as I am able. Glad they were helpful to you! I recommend the book!


----------



## MW

jwright82 said:


> Rev. Winzer I believe you have that book _Revelation and Reason_. What did you think about the essay on natural theology? I hope that doesn't sidetrack this thread.



James, it has been a couple of years so I might not be recalling exactly. Also, in a collection of essays in which some are better than others the less impressive ones don't leave you with much to remember. The heavy lifting was already done by Muller and Van Asselt in this area, so relying on their conclusions was safe and easy. I don't think it comes as a shock to anyone that CVT was not a precise historical theologian. The idea that he may have misinterpreted the Protestant scholastics is not startling. But I think the article fails to distinguish broader Protestant and stricter Reformed scholasticism. Putting forward Mede as an innovator is not helpful. The English theology contained the broader and the stricter strains in the 16th century, as is clear from the Puritan response to the Elizabethan settlement and the conflicting views of reason involved there. I also recall that sometimes CVT's statements on "the natural man" are made to apply to "natural theology," which is not helpful considering CVT's great contribution to the 20th century was his insistence that all facts are revelational, and the point of contact must be found in that objective revelation and not some subjective state of man. The simple point of criticism CVT made of old Princeton should be left simple, and it is one we can all agree with -- there was not enough emphasis on reason as fallen. If Bahnsen had have maintained this simple criticism he could have remained with one foot on Princeton and stayed in the mainstream of Reformed thought; as it is he took Van Til's legacy a further step away from Princeton and ironically became cynical at the very point neo-orthodoxy became cynical of objective natural revelation.


----------



## jwright82

armourbearer said:


> James, it has been a couple of years so I might not be recalling exactly. Also, in a collection of essays in which some are better than others the less impressive ones don't leave you with much to remember. The heavy lifting was already done by Muller and Van Asselt in this area, so relying on their conclusions was safe and easy. I don't think it comes as a shock to anyone that CVT was not a precise historical theologian. The idea that he may have misinterpreted the Protestant scholastics is not startling. But I think the article fails to distinguish broader Protestant and stricter Reformed scholasticism. Putting forward Mede as an innovator is not helpful. The English theology contained the broader and the stricter strains in the 16th century, as is clear from the Puritan response to the Elizabethan settlement and the conflicting views of reason involved there. I also recall that sometimes CVT's statements on "the natural man" are made to apply to "natural theology," which is not helpful considering CVT's great contribution to the 20th century was his insistence that all facts are revelational, and the point of contact must be found in that objective revelation and not some subjective state of man. The simple point of criticism CVT made of old Princeton should be left simple, and it is one we can all agree with -- there was not enough emphasis on reason as fallen. If Bahnsen had have maintained this simple criticism he could have remained with one foot on Princeton and stayed in the mainstream of Reformed thought; as it is he took Van Til's legacy a further step away from Princeton and ironically became cynical at the very point neo-orthodoxy became cynical of objective natural revelation.



I appreciate it. Yeah I wondered because the essay had a largley negative view of natural theology. And argued that the scholastics viewed it that way. I can't say because that is not my most familer area. Thanks for the history too, again not an area I am most familer with. I did totaly agree about Van Til and Bahnsen, more of an area I am familer with. But thank you.




sastark said:


> Since Van Til (and Bahnsen after him) begin with the truth of God's Word, as testified by the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer, and since those things are clearly taught in WCF chapter 1, I think the term "Confessional Apologetics" is fitting (at least, I've used it a couple times in the last few days).
> 
> I'll be posting more notes as I am able. Glad they were helpful to you! I recommend the book!



Yeah I alike Confessional Apologetics, I have argued in other threads that we need a Confessional Philosophy as well. I went with my name because in my church at least I am dealing with average very godly christians who are are more evangelical than lest say reformed. I go to a great church but it is big. The teaching is solidly reformed but I couldn't just start throwing strictly theological words around. I needed a better way that doesn't contradict Van Til but is more memerable to an average christian.


----------



## JWY

Two other notable responses to Dr. Copan...

Dr. James Anderson 

Does Presuppositionalism Engage in Question-Begging? | Analogical Thoughts 

Dr. James White? 

Paul Copan's Questioning of Presuppositionalism - YouTube


----------



## forgivenmuch

Off-topic, but related: Has anyone read Copan's _Is God a Moral Monster?_ I'm guessing either no, or if you have, then you probably have a negative opinion on it. Just curious if it was worth a read.


----------



## Hilasmos

forgivenmuch said:


> Off-topic, but related: Has anyone read Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? I'm guessing either no, or if you have, then you probably have a negative opinion on it. Just curious if it was worth a read.



I read it; I thought it had some good points, but generally it carried the tone that he was trying to explain why the text doesn't sound as bad as it sounds. Of course, that can be helpful to a degree. At a few points in the book did he finally challenge the skeptics unbelieving presuppositions, but it always seemed to come right after he put the skeptic in the position of judge.


----------



## forgivenmuch

Hilasmos said:


> forgivenmuch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Off-topic, but related: Has anyone read Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? I'm guessing either no, or if you have, then you probably have a negative opinion on it. Just curious if it was worth a read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it; I thought it had some good points, but generally it carried the tone that he was trying to explain why the text doesn't sound as bad as it sounds. Of course, that can be helpful to a degree. At a few points in the book did he finally challenge the skeptics unbelieving presuppositions, but it always seemed to come right after he put the skeptic in the position of judge.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Yeah, that's the impression I've received from many of the reviews that I have read, that he tries to "explain away" the issues/texts (sugarcoat them almost), without actually explaining the issues.


----------



## ChristianTrader

sastark said:


> Since Van Til (and Bahnsen after him) begin with the truth of God's Word, as testified by the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer, and since those things are clearly taught in WCF chapter 1, I think the term "Confessional Apologetics" is fitting (at least, I've used it a couple times in the last few days).
> 
> I'll be posting more notes as I am able. Glad they were helpful to you! I recommend the book!



I agree with WCF chap. 1, and see no problem with the view that Romans 1 proclaims that natural revelation/light of nature is clear enough that man is without excuse. Given this, why is beginning with natural theology/natural law considered suspect? It seems like it makes a great point of contact with unbelievers.

CT


----------



## jwright82

ChristianTrader said:


> I agree with WCF chap. 1, and see no problem with the view that Romans 1 proclaims that natural revelation/light of nature is clear enough that man is without excuse. Given this, why is beginning with natural theology/natural law considered suspect? It seems like it makes a great point of contact with unbelievers.



I would say that there is a difference between natural revelation and natural theology. I would argue that Romans 1 is discussing the former and not the latter.


----------



## MW

jwright82 said:


> I would say that there is a difference between natural revelation and natural theology. I would argue that Romans 1 is discussing the former and not the latter.



Theos (God) + Logos (Word, Doctrine) = Theology. The only way to avoid a natural theology is to refuse to speak a word on the doctrinal content of the revelation God has given in nature.


----------



## ChristianTrader

jwright82 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with WCF chap. 1, and see no problem with the view that Romans 1 proclaims that natural revelation/light of nature is clear enough that man is without excuse. Given this, why is beginning with natural theology/natural law considered suspect? It seems like it makes a great point of contact with unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that there is a difference between natural revelation and natural theology. I would argue that Romans 1 is discussing the former and not the latter.
Click to expand...


What is the difference as you see it?


----------



## athanatos

Anyone read Oliphint's?


----------



## jwright82

ChristianTrader said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with WCF chap. 1, and see no problem with the view that Romans 1 proclaims that natural revelation/light of nature is clear enough that man is without excuse. Given this, why is beginning with natural theology/natural law considered suspect? It seems like it makes a great point of contact with unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that there is a difference between natural revelation and natural theology. I would argue that Romans 1 is discussing the former and not the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference as you see it?
Click to expand...


Well for me the difference is that NR is a given to all people, whether or not they aknowledge it. Since the unbeleiver can interpret it in ways that are not true it is limited in how we can use it to prove things. But when they stand before God they will have no accuse. NT on the otherhand is something man made. We atempt to deduce things about God from nature alone. I believe that even if you could prove somethings it would be so limited as to be essentially useless. It is in special revelation that God reveals His attributes to us. I don't outright regect NT in theory but my gut tells me it will prove to be unsuccessful. If a christian wishes to engage in it than I think that is fine but I don't.

The paper you posted for me a while back, which I greatly appreciated by the way, is probably the best thing I have ever seen written on the subject of NT or in that case natural law (but the same principles apply here as well). In there if I remember correctly the author argues that for NT to work we need to come to consensus about our view of God and man with beleivers and unbeleivers. Very true, I would even go out on a limb and say that Van Til would have agreed to this point as well. But he and I would at this point say that the only sure foundation to base this consensus on would be special revelation, which the unbeleiver regects in principle anyway. So there could never in primciple be any consensus, which destroys the original theory.

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------




athanatos said:


> Anyone read Oliphint's?



Thank you for sharing that. Oliphint is in my opinion one of the greatest thinkers of our time.


----------



## J. Dean

Maybe I'm being a little obtuse here, but if an argument is biblical and logical, then I don't care whether it's presuppositional, classical, or any "sitional." If it's true, then it's true, regardless of the classification we give it.

Also, shouldn't each premise be weighed on its own merit and not whether it's "classical" or "Presuppositional"?


----------



## jwright82

J. Dean said:


> Maybe I'm being a little obtuse here, but if an argument is biblical and logical, then I don't care whether it's presuppositional, classical, or any "sitional." If it's true, then it's true, regardless of the classification we give it.
> 
> Also, shouldn't each premise be weighed on its own merit and not whether it's "classical" or "Presuppositional"?



Well to do apologetics correctly you in theory need some kind of tool to do so. Philosophy, history, or whatever gives us such tools. The tools used to defend the faith are drastictly different from the different schools. Also some tools are better than others. Some work great, some not at all. 

The reason I side with Van Til is because he, INHO, adopted the best tools for our theological tradition. He started with theology and worked his method out from there.


----------



## J. Dean

jwright82 said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to do apologetics correctly you in theory need some kind of tool to do so. Philosophy, history, or whatever gives us such tools. The tools used to defend the faith are drastictly different from the different schools. Also some tools are better than others. Some work great, some not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't dispute that at all. Anselm of Canterbury's apologetics were fun to hear, but they hurt my head after a while, and in retrospect weren't that strong in my opinion (God being the greatest thing we can imagine)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I side with Van Til is because he, INHO, adopted the best tools for our theological tradition. He started with theology and worked his method out from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need to read his stuff.
Click to expand...


----------



## Philip

jwright82 said:


> Yeah I alike Confessional Apologetics, I have argued in other threads that we need a Confessional Philosophy as well.



See, I don't. Calling it "confessional" implies that those who take issue with Van Til and Van Tillianism are unconfessional. As for a Confessional Philosophy, I don't think there is one. Certainly subscription to the confession will make one take certain positions, but good confessional folks have disagreed and do disagree on many philosophical issues. The confession is a point of departure and does not contain an answer to every philosophical problem or question.



jwright82 said:


> But he and I would at this point say that the only sure foundation to base this consensus on would be special revelation



In which case, general revelation really isn't revelation, given that it doesn't really reveal anything unless you already have special revelation. The argument against NT will always turn into an argument against GR.



jwright82 said:


> The tools used to defend the faith are drastictly different from the different schools.



Not really. I borrow from presuppositional tools all the time---the tools needed for a particular situation depend on the kind of situation it is. Sledghammers are wonderful if you need to break down cement walls, but they're irrelevant when it comes to fixing the pipes. The tools of presuppositionalism are not suited to every situation for the simple reason that people have different apologetical issues. One of my first questions to a non-Christian tends to be to ask what keeps them from the Church and from Christianity because their answer helps me to know what needs to be said.



J. Dean said:


> God being the greatest thing we can imagine



That's not quite it, actually: it's "that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought" which means that the definition in mind here is such that nothing greater could be conceivable by _any_ being---including God.


----------



## Loopie

I recently came across a few sections from Calvin's Institutes that discuss both general and special revelation. I was searching for some thoughts from Calvin concerning philosophy and revelation, and here is what I came across (I placed in bold those parts I wanted to highlight):

"Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them. For in regard to the fabric and admirable arrangement of the universe, how few of us are there who, in lifting our eyes to the heavens, or looking abroad on the various regions of the earth, ever think of the Creator? Do we not rather overlook him, and sluggishly content ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few are there who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God--how many who imagine that they are casual results produced by the blind evolutions of the wheel of chance? Even when under the guidance and direction of these events, we are in a manner forced to the contemplation of God (a circumstance which all must occasionally experience), and are thuse led to form some impressions of Deity, we immediately fly off to carnal dreams and depraved fictions, so by our vanity corrupt heavenly truth. This far, indeed, we differ from each other, *in that everyone appropriates to himself some peculiar error; but we are all alike in this, that we subsitute monstrous fictions for the one living and true God*--a disease not confined to obtuse and vulgar minds, but affecting the noblest, and those who, in other aspects, are singularly acute. How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others whose absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in his round globe? What must be the case with the rest, when the leaders, who ought to have set them an example, commit such blunders, and labor under such hallucinations? In like manner, while the government of the world places the doctrine of providence beyond dispute, the practical result is the same as if it were believed that all things were carried hither and thither at the caprice of change; so prone are we to vanity and error. I am still referring to the most distinguished of the philosophers, and not to the common herd, whose madness in profaning the truth of God exceeds all abounds.

Hence that immense flood of error with which the whole world is overflowed. Every individual mind being a kind of labyrinth, it is not wonderful, not only that each nation adopted a variety of fictions, but that almost every man has had his own God. To the darkness of ignorance have been added presumption and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an individual to be found without some idol or phantom as a substitude for Deity. Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, *every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar from of divinity, to meet his own views...*

...But if the most distinguished wandered in darkness, what shall we say of the refuse? No wonder, therefore, that all worship of man's device is repudiated by the Holy Spirit as degenerate. *Any opinion which man can form in heavenly mysteries, thought it may not beget a long train of errors, is still the parent of error.* And though nothing worse should happen, even this is no light sin--to worship an unknown God at random. Of this sin, however, we hear from our Savior's own mouth (John 4:22), that all are guilty who have not been taught out of the Law who the God is whom they ought to worship.

*In vain for us, therefore, does creation exhibit so many bright lamps lighted up to show forth the glory of its Author. Though they beam upon us from every quarter, they are altogether insufficient of themselves to lead us into the right path. Some sparks, undoubtedly, they do throw out; but these are quenched before they can give forth a brighter effulgence.* Wherefore, the apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are images of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that they were framed by the word of God (Heb 11:3); thereby intimating that the invisible Godhead is indeed represented by such displays, *but that we have no eyes to perceive it until they are enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God. When Paul says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man (Rom 1:19); on the contrary, he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable (Acts 17:27).*

But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as the dullness which prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse. We cannot plead ignorance, without being at the same time convicted by our own consciences both of sloth and ingratitude. It were, indeed, a strange defense for man to pretend that he has no ears to hear the truth, while dumb creatures have voices loud enough to declare it; to allege that he is unable to see that which creatures without eyes demonstrate, to excuse himself on the ground of weakness of mind, while all creatures without reason are able to teach. Wherefore, when we wander and go astray, we are justly shut out from every species of excuse, because all things point to the right path. But while man must bear the guilty of corrupting the seed of divine knowledge so wondrously deposited in his mind, and preventing it from bearing good and genuine fruit, it is still mostly true that we are not sufficiently instructed by that bare and simple, but magnificent testimony which the creatures bear to the glory of their Creator. *For no sooner do we, from a survey of the world, obtain some slightly knowledge of Deity, than we pass by the true God, and set up in his stead the dream and phantom of our own brain, drawing away the praise of justice, wisdom, and goodness, from the fountain-head, and transferring it to some other quarter.* Moreover, by the erroneous estimate we form, we either so obscure or pervert his daily works, as at once to rob them of their glory and the author of them of his just praise." (Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 5)


----------



## jwright82

P. F. Pugh said:


> See, I don't. Calling it "confessional" implies that those who take issue with Van Til and Van Tillianism are unconfessional. As for a Confessional Philosophy, I don't think there is one. Certainly subscription to the confession will make one take certain positions, but good confessional folks have disagreed and do disagree on many philosophical issues. The confession is a point of departure and does not contain an answer to every philosophical problem or question.



Your right of course. I just don't see such a disconnect between our philosophy and our theology. But you are right, I defend the fact that the confession is not a philosophical document. But we should work out any philosophical consequences there are to our confession and go from there. Although I believe that no philosophy suppossedly worked out from the confession should be binding on any christian because the confession is not primaraly a philosophical document. 




P. F. Pugh said:


> In which case, general revelation really isn't revelation, given that it doesn't really reveal anything unless you already have special revelation. The argument against NT will always turn into an argument against GR.



Well you can't confuse God's revelation with our interpretation of it. Even prefall Adam needed special revelation to know what he was supposed to do.




P. F. Pugh said:


> Not really. I borrow from presuppositional tools all the time---the tools needed for a particular situation depend on the kind of situation it is. Sledghammers are wonderful if you need to break down cement walls, but they're irrelevant when it comes to fixing the pipes. The tools of presuppositionalism are not suited to every situation for the simple reason that people have different apologetical issues. One of my first questions to a non-Christian tends to be to ask what keeps them from the Church and from Christianity because their answer helps me to know what needs to be said.



Yes but all tools as you see are suited to their particuler task, that is all that Van Til meant. Put all evidences and arguments in perspective.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I've posted this before but this is Van Til's contribution to the book The Infallible Word. Van Til clearly did not reject Natural Theology but a Natural Theology that arises out of autonomous human reason:

*How is natural theology necessary?*

Scripture does not claim to speak to man in any other way than in conjunction with nature.[1] God's revelation of Himself in nature combined with His revelation of Himself in Scripture form God's one grand scheme of covenant relationship of Himself with man. The two forms presuppose and complement one another.[2]

It was necessary in the garden as the lower act of obedience learned from avoiding the tree of knowledge of good and evil man might learn the higher things of obedience to God. The natural appeared in the regularity of nature.

After the fall, the natural appears under the curse of God and not merely regular. God's curse on nature is revealed along with regularity. The natural reveals an unalleviated picture of folly and ruin[3] and speaks to the need for a Redeemer.

To the believer the natural or regular with all its complexity always appears as the playground for the process of differentiation which leads ever onward to the fullness of the glory of God.[4]
*
What is the authority of natural revelation?*

The same God who reveals Himself in Scripture is the God who reveals Himself in nature. They are of the same authority even if the former is superior in clarity than the latter. We are analogues to God and our respect for revelation in both spheres must be maintained and it is only when we refuse to act as creatures that we contrast authority between natural and special revelation. What comes to man by his rational and moral nature (created in God's image) is no less objective than what comes to him through the created order as all is in Covenant relationship to God. All created activity is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God.[5]
*
What is the sufficiency of natural revelation?*

It is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation. Natural revelation was never meant to function by itself (as above) but it was historically sufficient as it renders without excuse.[6] God's revelation in nature is sufficient in history to differentiate between those who who would and who would not serve God.[7]
*
What is meant by the perspicuity of natural revelation?*

God's revelation in nature was always meant to serve alongside His special revelation. God is a revealing God and the perspicuity of nature is bound up in the fact that He voluntarily reveals. Both natural and special revelation would be impossible if God remained incomprehensible as He is in Himself (archetypal theology). Man cannot penetrate God as He is Himself - he cannot comprehend God. But created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he does not see exhaustively. Man need not have exhaustive knowledge in order to know truly and certainly.[8]

God's thoughts about Himself are self-contained but man is an analogue who thinks in covenant relation to the One who created him. Thus man's interpretation of nature follows what is fully interpreted by God. Man thinks God's thoughts after him - not comprehensively but analogically.

The Psalmist doesn't declare that the heavens possibly or probably declare the glory of God. Paul does not say that the wrath of God is probably revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Scripture takes the clarity of God's revelation for granted at every stage of human history.[9] The God who speaks in Scripture cannot refer to anything that is not already authoratively revelational of Himself for the evidence of His own existence.[10] Everything exists that is His creation.

It is no easier for sinners to accept God in nature than it is for them to accept Him in Scripture. The two are inseparable in their clarity. We need the Holy Spirit to understand both. Man must be a Christian to study nature in a proper frame of mind.
*
How does Greek natural theology and the natural theology of Kant result in denying any rationality higher than itself?*

Neither allow analogical reasoning to understand the world. They start from nature and try to argue for a god who must be finite in nature. It starts with a "mute" universe that has no revelation and makes it revelational only with respect to the autonomous mind of man. No distinction is made between Creator and creature.
Kant's great contribution to philosophy consisted in stressing the activity of the experiencing subject. It is this point to which the idea of a Copernican revolution is usually applied. Kant argued that since it is the thinking subject that itself contributes the categories of universality and necessity, we must not think of these as covering any reality that exists or may exist wholly independent of the human mind. The validity of universals is to be taken as frankly due to a motion and a vote; it is conventional and nothing more.[11]

Plato and Aristotle, as well as Kant, assumed the autonomy of man. On such a basis man may reason univocally (have the same mind as God) and reach a God who is just an extension of the creature or he may reason equivocally and reach a God who has no contact with him at all.[12] Man is left with either God being part of nature (pantheism) or being so transcendent that He cannot get into nature (deism).

We're now left with a world where the scientist supposedly interacts with the physical world and can learn about the world apart from any reference to God and "ministers" who speak about God's revelation that has no reference to history and interaction with the world. Man is fractured intellectually where reason deals with things of the world and faith deals with things that cannot affect reason or the world.

The very idea of Kant's Copernican revolution was that the autonomous mind itself must assume the responsibility for making all factual differentiation and logical validation. To such a mind the God of Christianity cannot speak. Such a mind will hear no voice but its own.[13]

[1] Stonehouse and Woolley, The Infallible Word, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1967, p 263.
[2] Ibid, p 267.
[3] Ibid, p 271.
[4] Ibid, p 272.
[5] Ibid, p 274
[6] Ibid, p 275.
[7] Ibid, p 276.
[8] Ibid, p 278.
[9] Ibid, p 278.
[10] Ibid, p 279.
[11] Ibid, p 296.
[12] Ibid, p 297.
[13] Ibid, p 298.


----------



## MW

Thankyou for posting that again Rich.


----------



## ChristianTrader

*Van Til and Reason*

Van Til claimed that man's reasoning is unintelligible unless the Christian scriptures are presupposed. For the the purposes here, this is important in terms of the definition of "reason", as well as for what it does to the clarity of general revelation. If "reason" is taken to be the contemporary popular assumptions, then such assumptions as these are cultural and conventional. Different people, in different places, at different times, claim to "know" statements that contradict each other. Widespread belief is by no means knowledge. That our culture takes for granted the truth of the theory of evolution does not make it true. Hence, to take one's stand in the "reason of the day is specious "reasoning". But what if reason is taken in the sense that Hodge gave above? What if reason is the laws of thought, those laws necessary for thought itself? Hodge saw the law of non-contradiction as an obvious example. While Van Til argued that only Christian Theism can explain such a law, it seems he nevertheless used the law to argue for theism. His Transcendental Argument presupposes the law of non contradiction: The non-Christian world and life view is false because it is self-contradictory, therefore Christianity is true. This is the law of non-contradiction applied to basic beliefs. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption is that this law is necessary for thought, and only after that does one question which view is consistent.

What does this say for clarity? Van Til affirmed both general revelation, and the necessity of the scriptures for any knowledge. This is not the distinction that both Warfield and Kuyper made above with respect to the work of the Holy Spirit to renew men's hearts. Van Til agreed with them on that point. But his use of Scripture as the presupposition necessary for all knowledge is more than this; it is an epistemological claim about how to know, not an ontological claim about the ability to know. For Van Til the fall of man occurred when man tried to do without God in every part of life.[25] Humans sought the source of truth, goodness, and beauty in something besides God, either in self or in the material universe. The result is that humans tried to establish a worldview in which they interpreted all data apart from reference to God. In contrast, Van Til argued that persons must take their ideas about the nature of reality from the Bible, it being the final standard of truth itself. This is different from Warfield in an important way. Remember that Warfield argued that the Bible must first be authenticated as special revelation. This means that for Warfield there is a standard for gaining knowledge more basic than the Bible itself.

Van til affirmed the relation of redemptive revelation (supernatural revelation, or scriptures), and general revelation (natural revelation). He argued that special revelation is necessary because of the covenant disobedience on the part of Adam in Paradise. [26] Van Til saw the sin that caused humanity to fall as a violation of positive supernatural revelation. That is, God spoke to Adam and told him not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. What Van Til left unclear is how Adam knew it was God that told him this. How did Adam know God? Presumably one must first know God before one can know not to violate a command of God. It seems at least fair to assert that it was first a failure to know God as Creator that allowed Adam to eat thus breaking God's command. This knowing God as Creator is what all humans are held accountable for. But Van Til's description of the Fall as only the breaking of a commandment leaves unclear exactly what humanity is accountable for.

If the above considerations are correct, it follows that humanity could know God apart form the Christian scriptures. Perhaps, aspects of God's justice, mercy, and redemption cannot be known and are properly the subject of redemptive revelation, but God's eternal power and divine nature can be known. And it follows that these can be known of God after the Fall through general revelation. Reason does not fall (as if the law of non-contradiction became false after the Fall), but rather the desire to use reason changed. Van Til maintained that these truths about God could be known even after the Fall. [27] "Grace can be recognized as grace only in contrast to God's curse on nature." [28] In this Van Til agrees with the Westminster Confession in stating that all creation is a revelation of the nature of God, and it is in this light that scriptures as redemptive revelation make sense. But if God can be known through general revelation and yet all knowledge is through the Bible, then there appears to be a discrepancy.

Excerpt from Reason and Worldviews by Dr. Owen Anderson p.56-57

[25] Bahnsen's Van Til Reader p.95
[26] Van Til's Christian Apologetics p.30
[27] Van Til's Christian Apologetics p.31
[28] Van Til's Christian Apologetics p.31

---------- Post added at 02:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 AM ----------



> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with WCF chap. 1, and see no problem with the view that Romans 1 proclaims that natural revelation/light of nature is clear enough that man is without excuse. Given this, why is beginning with natural theology/natural law considered suspect? It seems like it makes a great point of contact with unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that there is a difference between natural revelation and natural theology. I would argue that Romans 1 is discussing the former and not the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference as you see it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well for me the difference is that NR is a given to all people, whether or not they aknowledge it. Since the unbeleiver can interpret it in ways that are not true it is limited in how we can use it to prove things. But when they stand before God they will have no accuse. NT on the otherhand is something man made. We atempt to deduce things about God from nature alone. I believe that even if you could prove somethings it would be so limited as to be essentially useless. It is in special revelation that God reveals His attributes to us. I don't outright regect NT in theory but my gut tells me it will prove to be unsuccessful. If a christian wishes to engage in it than I think that is fine but I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is the unbelievers bad use of NR or NT any argument against its use? People can be poor at math or statistics etc. but that doesn't speak against their proper uses.
> 
> Next, Roman 1 says that God reveals himself through General Revelation to the point that people are without excuse. That is a tremendously high standard. Romans 1 also speaks of God's attributes are revealed in natural revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paper you posted for me a while back, which I greatly appreciated by the way, is probably the best thing I have ever seen written on the subject of NT or in that case natural law (but the same principles apply here as well). In there if I remember correctly the author argues that for NT to work we need to come to consensus about our view of God and man with beleivers and unbeleivers. Very true, I would even go out on a limb and say that Van Til would have agreed to this point as well. But he and I would at this point say that the only sure foundation to base this consensus on would be special revelation, which the unbeleiver regects in principle anyway. So there could never in primciple be any consensus, which destroys the original theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, how does a lack of consensus work as an argument against NT etc. but not work against an argument against Special Revelation? There are a tremendous number of interpretations on various issues in the Bible. Does that imply that everyone just throw up their hands and walk away? If you say that we can properly interpret Scripture, then why not NR, NT etc.?
> 
> That author of the paper, explained how the consensus on NT could be gained; he did not just write that he wished such was possible.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> Van Til affirmed both general revelation, and the necessity of the scriptures for any knowledge.


This is simply false and is plainly contradicted by the portions of The Infallible Word that I posted above. The conjunction and is the problem in that sentence as well as the adjective any.

What Van Til wrote is that man must be born again to study Nature "...in the proper frame of mind..." but not that unregenerate man has no knowledge.

As he wrote:


Semper Fidelis said:


> It is no easier for sinners to accept God in nature than it is for them to accept Him in Scripture.



The Reformed have never taught that man's rational capacity is ruined but that he is ethically hostile to the Creator. Apart from Scripture, Van Til believed that Nature reveals God's power and that even the unalleviated picture of folly and ruin reveals the need for a Redeemer.

This is not a matter of propositional statements. This is not a matter of a lack of clear Revelation. It is whether that Revelation will have any fruition in the mind of a man who sees, daily, that Revelation and will accept the God that is revealed in Nature. The Scriptures teach that he will not for he hates that God and is enslaved to sin.

The Gospel comes then not primarily as a "gap filler" about the nature of God so that man may have more propositions by which he can weigh evidence by unaided reason. It is the power of God for salvation. It sets men free from the bondage of sin. Their problem is not the lack of propositional content in Nature to accept God as He's revealed but the need to be set free from sin as power that enslaves them to clamp their eyes shut to the glory they know is all around them.


----------



## jwright82

ChristianTrader said:


> How is the unbelievers bad use of NR or NT any argument against its use? People can be poor at math or statistics etc. but that doesn't speak against their proper uses.



Well first off I wouldn't automatically equate NR with NT as if there the same thing. You make an excellant point but the problem is this does our knowledge of God come first and immediatly from nature and ourselves or do we reach it from some discursive method of reasoning? If it is the former than NT is useless as far as the traditional arguments go. But if its the latter than that is different. But that still leaves open the question of the content of that knowledge in nature. People advocating a strong view of NT generally err on assuming that nature is revealing more than it is.




ChristianTrader said:


> Um, how does a lack of consensus work as an argument against NT etc. but not work against an argument against Special Revelation? There are a tremendous number of interpretations on various issues in the Bible. Does that imply that everyone just throw up their hands and walk away? If you say that we can properly interpret Scripture, then why not NR, NT etc.?
> 
> That author of the paper, explained how the consensus on NT could be gained; he did not just write that he wished such was possible.



Because any argument from NT or NL alone is upfront a fallacy. Even if everyone agrees on some moral law that only proves that everyone agrees on something. Anyone at that point is well withen their epistemic rights to disagree. They may have some use in persuading a group of people of the truth but they are so limited as to be INMO practically useless.


----------



## ChristianTrader

jwright82 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the unbelievers bad use of NR or NT any argument against its use? People can be poor at math or statistics etc. but that doesn't speak against their proper uses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first off I wouldn't automatically equate NR with NT as if there the same thing. You make an excellant point but the problem is this does our knowledge of God come first and immediatly from nature and ourselves or do we reach it from some discursive method of reasoning? If it is the former than NT is useless as far as the traditional arguments go. But if its the latter than that is different. But that still leaves open the question of the content of that knowledge in nature. People advocating a strong view of NT generally err on assuming that nature is revealing more than it is.
Click to expand...


I would say it is a combination of the two positions. Concepts etc. we are born with/gain immediately when we interact with the world. The knowledge can/is depended when we focus on developing such knowledge.

Next, on what basis do you think those who advocate a strong view of NT are assuming too much?


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, how does a lack of consensus work as an argument against NT etc. but not work against an argument against Special Revelation? There are a tremendous number of interpretations on various issues in the Bible. Does that imply that everyone just throw up their hands and walk away? If you say that we can properly interpret Scripture, then why not NR, NT etc.?
> 
> That author of the paper, explained how the consensus on NT could be gained; he did not just write that he wished such was possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because any argument from NT or NL alone is upfront a fallacy. Even if everyone agrees on some moral law that only proves that everyone agrees on something. Anyone at that point is well withen their epistemic rights to disagree. They may have some use in persuading a group of people of the truth but they are so limited as to be INMO practically useless.
Click to expand...


Why is anyone who disagrees within their epistemic rights to automatically disagree? They may be within their rights to disagree with a certain position or claim but I am not seeing how that extends to any and all claims.

CT


----------



## jwright82

ChristianTrader said:


> Next, on what basis do you think those who advocate a strong view of NT are assuming too much?



On the basis of what can be known about God from nature? Not much. As much as I love philosophy I do not believe that we can rip open heaven and logically deduce anything about God apart from special revelation. Philosophy investagates creation. I know that persons advocating a strong view of NT will say that these are revealed in nature but the arguments themselves are purely logical. 

I mean where can you go in nature to show that God is omniscient?




ChristianTrader said:


> I would say it is a combination of the two positions. Concepts etc. we are born with/gain immediately when we interact with the world. The knowledge can/is depended when we focus on developing such knowledge.



Sure but how much about has God is revealed in nature? Is it enough to warrant a discipline called NT? I don't think so. 






ChristianTrader said:


> Why is anyone who disagrees within their epistemic rights to automatically disagree? They may be within their rights to disagree with a certain position or claim but I am not seeing how that extends to any and all claims.



Its not all claims, only claims reached by consensus. Just because a lot of people agree on something I'm under no obligation to believe it. Also any new "knowledge" reached after this grand consensus will be suspect for that reason too. I think for NT to have a chance it needs to be heavely reconstructed. But the question is after this reconstruction has thrown out anything of no value will there be anything left?


----------



## MW

jwright82 said:


> I mean where can you go in nature to show that God is omniscient?



Is it possible to conceive an absolute God without absolute knowledge?

What do you think of this statement by CVT? "It is the weakness of the Roman Catholic and the Arminian methods that they virtually identify objective validity with subjective acceptability to the natural man. Distinguishing carefully between these two, the Reformed apologist maintains that there is an absolutely valid argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christian theism. He cannot do less without virtually admitting that God’s revelation to man is not clear. It is fatal to the Reformed apologist to admit that man has done justice to the objective evidence if he comes to any other conclusion than that of the truth of Christian theism.

As for the question whether the natural man will accept the truth of such an argument, we answer that he will if God pleases by his Spirit to take the scales from his eyes and the mask from his face. It is upon the power of the Holy Spirit that the Reformed preacher relies when he tells men that they are lost in sin and in need of a Savior.” The Defense of the Faith, p. 104.


----------



## jwright82

armourbearer said:


> Is it possible to conceive an absolute God without absolute knowledge?



Granted, but why conceive of an absolute God at all? There are as many different "conceptions" of God as there are religions. Plus the whole idea of conception of God apart from special revelation makes me a little uneasy. I'm not saying that that is what your saying here, I'm just trying to make a distinction between the covenantal/personal attributes that God has chosen to reveal to us in scripture and the most general and limited knowledge He has revealed in nature. 




armourbearer said:


> What do you think of this statement by CVT? "It is the weakness of the Roman Catholic and the Arminian methods that they virtually identify objective validity with subjective acceptability to the natural man. Distinguishing carefully between these two, the Reformed apologist maintains that there is an absolutely valid argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christian theism. He cannot do less without virtually admitting that God’s revelation to man is not clear. It is fatal to the Reformed apologist to admit that man has done justice to the objective evidence if he comes to any other conclusion than that of the truth of Christian theism.



I believe he is in the context of the section you are quoting from, "Arguing from Presupposition", merely pointing out that the opposing apologists are equating acceptability of an argument with its status as being true or not. The unbeleiver will never admit to the truth of christian theism even when faced with objective proof. 




armourbearer said:


> As for the question whether the natural man will accept the truth of such an argument, we answer that he will if God pleases by his Spirit to take the scales from his eyes and the mask from his face. It is upon the power of the Holy Spirit that the Reformed preacher relies when he tells men that they are lost in sin and in need of a Savior.” The Defense of the Faith, p. 104.



I take this to be the ultimate hope of the apologist. It is the Holy Spirit who "convinces" the unbeleiver of their guilt and error.


----------



## MW

jwright82 said:


> Granted, but why conceive of an absolute God at all?



Because it is understood by the things that are made, Romans 1:20. 



jwright82 said:


> The unbeleiver will never admit to the truth of christian theism even when faced with objective proof.



In saying that you have just conceded "objective proof." The fact that an unbeliever will not admit it should not alleviate the duty of the believer to provide it.



jwright82 said:


> I take this to be the ultimate hope of the apologist. It is the Holy Spirit who "convinces" the unbeleiver of their guilt and error.



Yes, but it is the "objective validity" of which the unbeliever becomes convinced by the work of the Holy Spirit. Hence the need for the Christian to maintain objective validity in his apologetic. Without this objectivity apologetics will become neo-orthodox and require an encounter to establish "truth."


----------



## jwright82

armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Granted, but why conceive of an absolute God at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is understood by the things that are made, Romans 1:20.
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unbeleiver will never admit to the truth of christian theism even when faced with objective proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In saying that you have just conceded "objective proof." The fact that an unbeliever will not admit it should not alleviate the duty of the believer to provide it.
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take this to be the ultimate hope of the apologist. It is the Holy Spirit who "convinces" the unbeleiver of their guilt and error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but it is the "objective validity" of which the unbeliever becomes convinced by the work of the Holy Spirit. Hence the need for the Christian to maintain objective validity in his apologetic. Without this objectivity apologetics will become neo-orthodox and require an encounter to establish "truth."
Click to expand...


Oh I completly agree. I believe that I have 100% of time maintaned the idea of objective proof of christian theism on this site. What I was attacking was not objective proof per se but a certian type of it, NT. I regect neo-orthodox ecounter, I-Thou vs. I-It, ecounters. I firmley believe that Van Til's method does yeild objective proof for christian theism, as I have argued since joining this site.

---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------

But I completly see your concern. Thank you for pointing it out to me so that I could better clarify myself.


----------



## Apologist4Him

sastark said:


> Today, The Gospel Coalition posted an article by Paul Copan on Presuppositional Apologetics. Quite frankly, I would be ashamed of an article that depended on such a caricature of presuppositionalism rather than what presuppositionalism actually teaches. Dr. Copan, who is a well known philosopher and apologist, should know better.
> 
> Questioning Presuppositionalism – The Gospel Coalition Blog



Reads like a typical Arminian assessment. Van Tillian presuppositionalism is just as offensive to an Arminian, as a non-Christian, mostly because of how Reformed Van Til's apologetic is, at least to those who understand it. The most laughable criticism is that presuppositionalism involves circular reasoning. Why yes it does, but when it comes right down to the most basic presuppositions of a worldview, can any worldview escape circular reasoning? How does the rationalist escape the fact they have to use logic to prove logic, is that itself not arguing in vicious circles? There are too many apologists working under the assumption they can be neutral regarding the facts, as though autonomy were a neutral ladder to theonomy...as though the facts are not God created facts...as though our ability to reason were not part of being made in the image of God. Man centered apologists will never have much good to say about presuppositional apologetics, because man centered apologists are mindful of men think about them, mindful not to be offense or preachy else they might loose listeners or be considered less than brilliant for Christian dogmatism. When it comes down to it, man centered apologists want a place in the glory with God, they enjoy the pats on the back, the money from books, the high places of honor, more than the truth of God. Way too many Christians have downplayed and undermined presuppositinal apologetics, and those same people, will be the last to explain the beauty of the Van Tillian apologetic....a Christian need not memorize dozens of arguments, or study the errors and deception of thousands upon thousands of heretics and religions to be an effective defender of the faith because in my experiences, a presuppositinalist will examine the presuppositions of the non-Christian worldview (or inconsistent Christian worldview) and demonstrate how they fall short of the glory of God of Biblical Christianity. Just preachin' to the choir...


----------



## jwright82

Upon further thought Rev. Winzer I think I see your point. So let me lay out NT as I see it. 
1. Without scripture and spiritual regeneration you cannot have or believe a true view of NT
2. Any autonomous view of NT says that we can know all sorts of things about God from nature alone, these views should be regected
3. Scripture is the lens by which we view nature correctly

I believe that that is the traditionaly reformed view of NT but please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## ChristianTrader

jwright82 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next, on what basis do you think those who advocate a strong view of NT are assuming too much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the basis of what can be known about God from nature? Not much. As much as I love philosophy I do not believe that we can rip open heaven and logically deduce anything about God apart from special revelation. Philosophy investagates creation. I know that persons advocating a strong view of NT will say that these are revealed in nature but the arguments themselves are purely logical.
> 
> I mean where can you go in nature to show that God is omniscient?
Click to expand...


Actually I think such is an implication of God's eternality.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it is a combination of the two positions. Concepts etc. we are born with/gain immediately when we interact with the world. The knowledge can/is depended when we focus on developing such knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but how much about has God is revealed in nature? Is it enough to warrant a discipline called NT? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


According to Romans 1, quite a bit.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is anyone who disagrees within their epistemic rights to automatically disagree? They may be within their rights to disagree with a certain position or claim but I am not seeing how that extends to any and all claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not all claims, only claims reached by consensus. Just because a lot of people agree on something I'm under no obligation to believe it. Also any new "knowledge" reached after this grand consensus will be suspect for that reason too. I think for NT to have a chance it needs to be heavely reconstructed. But the question is after this reconstruction has thrown out anything of no value will there be anything left?
Click to expand...


I was not making an appeal to the number of people who believe something to be a proxy for its truth. Either a position can be defended or it can't.

CT


----------



## MW

jwright82 said:


> 1. Without scripture and spiritual regeneration you cannot have or believe a true view of NT



Yes; CVT emphasised that general revelation was never intended to function apart from special revelation. Gen. 2:16, 17. Special revelation was needed for eschatological blessedness, and after the fall was necessary for redemption and to free general revelation from idolatrous perversion.

I'm not sure about the wisdom of adding "spiritual regeneration" to "Scripture" when dealing with the content of revelation. I find it helpful to always distinguish between scriptural light and spiritual sight. The opening of the eyes of the blind enables him to see the light that was there all along; it does not add anything to the light itself.



jwright82 said:


> 2. Any autonomous view of NT says that we can know all sorts of things about God from nature alone, these views should be regected



If we say that the problem with the autonomous person is that he wants to interpret NT on his own terms, and that "nature alone" includes a rejection of special revelation, then this point stands.



jwright82 said:


> 3. Scripture is the lens by which we view nature correctly



Yes, absolutely.

That is definitely the traditional reformed view. It is wonderful to be able to discuss these things with an appreciation for our heritage.


----------



## ChristianTrader

jwright82 said:


> Upon further thought Rev. Winzer I think I see your point. So let me lay out NT as I see it.
> 1. Without scripture and spiritual regeneration you cannot have or believe a true view of NT



I don't see the purpose of NT as necessarily to get one to believe the truth. I see it more along the lines of making a person see, "I have no response to this and have to be quiet." They may continue to attempt to find a way around NT properly done, but they will not be able to go around and proselytize for their unbelief.



> 2. Any autonomous view of NT says that we can know all sorts of things about God from nature alone, these views should be regected



I don't see how you can make sense of Romans 1, if Right Reason is unable to deliver proper beliefs.



> 3. Scripture is the lens by which we view nature correctly
> 
> I believe that that is the traditionaly reformed view of NT but please correct me if I am wrong.



The problem is that general revelation is more basic than Scripture. Scripture presupposes natural revelation but natural revelation does not presuppose Scripture. If one needs Scripture to properly understand natural revelation, then one has a big problem.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> The problem is that general revelation is more basic than Scripture. Scripture presupposes natural revelation but natural revelation does not presuppose Scripture. If one needs Scripture to properly understand natural revelation, then one has a big problem.



The purpose of the covenant of works was to direct man to the end for which he was created. If what was created required something additional for its development, it is obvious that what was created was not sufficient of itself.


----------



## MarieP

sastark said:


> I would be ashamed of an article that depended on such a caricature of presuppositionalism rather than what presuppositionalism actually teaches.



Yes, too many people have faulty presuppositions about it!


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that general revelation is more basic than Scripture. Scripture presupposes natural revelation but natural revelation does not presuppose Scripture. If one needs Scripture to properly understand natural revelation, then one has a big problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the covenant of works was to direct man to the end for which he was created. If what was created required something additional for its development, it is obvious that what was created was not sufficient of itself.
Click to expand...


Now I believe that NT properly done points to Scripture. But that is different than NT presupposing Scripture. I would also not have a problem with someone saying that special revelation completes general revelation. However again that does not imply that the knowledge from special revelation is somehow unsure in itself.

CT


----------



## Loopie

How does one properly do NT without any reference to God's word first? The natural man is unable and unwilling to do NT properly. Not until his eyes are opened will he acknowledge the truth that is in front of him.

---------- Post added at 09:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 AM ----------

I would say that the creation we see in front of us provides sufficient knowledge of God to condemn us, but not to save us. Only when God supernaturally replaces the heart of stone with the heart of flesh will that happen.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Loopie said:


> How does one properly do NT without any reference to God's word first? The natural man is unable and unwilling to do NT properly. Not until his eyes are opened will he acknowledge the truth that is in front of him.




If it cannot be done without reference to God's word, then one would say that one is only responsible to know God and act in accordance with His commands after one has the Bible properly explained to them. That is not what Romans 1 says.

Next, I am not saying/asking that the unbeliever, go out and do NT properly and then I will present the Gospel to them, after they get it right. As a regenerate person, I am making the claim that unbelievers are without excuse (in their current state) for their wickedness. NT is the justification of that claim.



> I would say that the creation we see in front of us provides sufficient knowledge of God to condemn us, but not to save us. Only when God supernaturally replaces the heart of stone with the heart of flesh will that happen.



I have never stated otherwise. However, I do believe that God's process of calling His elect towards Himself, is done through the means of proper presentation and explanation of man's current state and God's command to repent and believe the gospel.

CT


----------



## Loopie

ChristianTrader said:


> If it cannot be done without reference to God's word, then one would say that one is only responsible to know God and act in accordance with His commands after one has the Bible properly explained to them. That is not what Romans 1 says.



That isn't quite what I meant. I agree that when a person looks at creation, they SHOULD easily recognize and glorify the Triune God of the Bible. And even though ALL people have a knowledge of their creator (a sense of the divine based on what Romans 1 teaches), this knowledge only condemns them and does not save them. For salvation to occur God MUST act by regenerating the unbeliever. If I am not mistaken the ordinary means by which this is done is God's word/the gospel.



ChristianTrader said:


> Next, I am not saying/asking that the unbeliever, go out and do NT properly and then I will present the Gospel to them, after they get it right. As a regenerate person, I am making the claim that unbelievers are without excuse (in their current state) for their wickedness. NT is the justification of that claim.



Then we are in agreement. Unbelievers are completely without excuse.


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Now I believe that NT properly done points to Scripture. But that is different than NT presupposing Scripture. I would also not have a problem with someone saying that special revelation completes general revelation. However again that does not imply that the knowledge from special revelation is somehow unsure in itself.



If special revelation completes general revelation then general revelation is partial in a certain respect. Think of the two creation ordinances. How would man know that a whole day and which specific day was the Sabbath without some disclosure of God's will? Or how would he know that he must cleave to his wife alone? We can certainly identify the "moral" element inherent in natural theology, but I cannot see how this suffices to know God's will when God's will contains positive elements.


----------



## Philip

Loopie said:


> That isn't quite what I meant. I agree that when a person looks at creation, they SHOULD easily recognize and glorify the Triune God of the Bible.



All right, then. In that case, general revelation is sufficient on its own to provide knowledge such that the non-believer who has never heard of the Bible is condemned in his unbelief. That is to say, there must therefore be enough evidence in general revelation alone to warrant Trinitarianism.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> That is to say, there must therefore be enough evidence in general revelation alone to warrant Trinitarianism.



The Trinity is purely a doctrine of special revelation.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> The Trinity is purely a doctrine of special revelation.



You're in good company there. My point was simply that if you are going to make the claim that all non-belief in a triune God is culpable, then either you are claiming a) all non-believers are recipients of special revelation b) there is enough evidence to warrant belief in the trinity apart from special revelation.


----------



## ChristianTrader

P. F. Pugh said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trinity is purely a doctrine of special revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're in good company there. My point was simply that if you are going to make the claim that all non-belief in a triune God is culpable, then either you are claiming a) all non-believers are recipients of special revelation b) there is enough evidence to warrant belief in the trinity apart from special revelation.
Click to expand...


I would defend a similar claim by saying that c)All non-Trinitarian worldviews blow up. In such a case, one would still be culpable for their trust in a false God.

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> I would defend a similar claim by saying that c)All non-Trinitarian worldviews blow up.



This would constitute b).


----------



## ChristianTrader

P. F. Pugh said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would defend a similar claim by saying that c)All non-Trinitarian worldviews blow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would constitute b).
Click to expand...


Okay, I would more easily say that they were warranted in their belief that non-Trinitarian worldviews were false. I don't think that is quite the same as saying that they were warranted in belief that Biblical Trinitarianis was true. But there is no reason to go to blows over it  

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> Okay, I would more easily say that they were warranted in their belief that non-Trinitarian worldviews were false. I don't think that is quite the same as saying that they were warranted in belief that Biblical Trinitarianis was true.



If all ~X are false, then X is true. However, in practice, all ~X=false is an unprovable proposition, given that ~X includes so many possible views (Van Tillian protests notwithstanding).


----------



## ChristianTrader

P. F. Pugh said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I would more easily say that they were warranted in their belief that non-Trinitarian worldviews were false. I don't think that is quite the same as saying that they were warranted in belief that Biblical Trinitarianis was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all ~X are false, then X is true. However, in practice, all ~X=false is an unprovable proposition, given that ~X includes so many possible views (Van Tillian protests notwithstanding).
Click to expand...


Well it basically depends on if you can categorize the competition into a small number of categorizes. If you can, then by process of elimination, you can be certain that you win. My hesitancy is due to not understanding the Trinity well enough to explain why God can only be Triune and not simply multi-personed. 

CT


----------



## jwright82

armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Without scripture and spiritual regeneration you cannot have or believe a true view of NT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; CVT emphasised that general revelation was never intended to function apart from special revelation. Gen. 2:16, 17. Special revelation was needed for eschatological blessedness, and after the fall was necessary for redemption and to free general revelation from idolatrous perversion.
> 
> I'm not sure about the wisdom of adding "spiritual regeneration" to "Scripture" when dealing with the content of revelation. I find it helpful to always distinguish between scriptural light and spiritual sight. The opening of the eyes of the blind enables him to see the light that was there all along; it does not add anything to the light itself.
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Any autonomous view of NT says that we can know all sorts of things about God from nature alone, these views should be regected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we say that the problem with the autonomous person is that he wants to interpret NT on his own terms, and that "nature alone" includes a rejection of special revelation, then this point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Scripture is the lens by which we view nature correctly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, absolutely.
> 
> That is definitely the traditional reformed view. It is wonderful to be able to discuss these things with an appreciation for our heritage.
Click to expand...


I agree and I am glad that my view is withen the traditional bounds. And I am glad as well that we can discuss these things with an appreciation for our heritage. 




ChristianTrader said:


> I don't see the purpose of NT as necessarily to get one to believe the truth. I see it more along the lines of making a person see, "I have no response to this and have to be quiet." They may continue to attempt to find a way around NT properly done, but they will not be able to go around and proselytize for their unbelief.



I could agree with this as long as NT was properly defined.




ChristianTrader said:


> I don't see how you can make sense of Romans 1, if Right Reason is unable to deliver proper beliefs.



Well Romans 1 says that we know God's "invisible attributes" without elaborating on just what they are. Plus in that instance you are using SR to interpret GR not GR alone. Even in the Garden Adam needed SR to know what his purpose was. GR could never have shown him that he needed to take dominion over everything or not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Being a male myself I think that he probably would have figured the be fruitful and multiply part but not for the same reasons. I am not making SR more important than GR but only arguing for their complimentary relationship. you need both. You can't get the whole picture without both. 




ChristianTrader said:


> The problem is that general revelation is more basic than Scripture. Scripture presupposes natural revelation but natural revelation does not presuppose Scripture. If one needs Scripture to properly understand natural revelation, then one has a big problem.



Again they both are needed to make sense of things. NT seems at some points to be done apart from SR and that is what I am objecting to.


----------



## Loopie

P. F. Pugh said:


> Loopie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't quite what I meant. I agree that when a person looks at creation, they SHOULD easily recognize and glorify the Triune God of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All right, then. In that case, general revelation is sufficient on its own to provide knowledge such that the non-believer who has never heard of the Bible is condemned in his unbelief. That is to say, there must therefore be enough evidence in general revelation alone to warrant Trinitarianism.
Click to expand...


Well, keep in mind that man was never meant to live apart from God's special revelation. Consider Adam's situation. He had the general revelation of creation, but he also had a special revelation when God spoke directly to him. God gave him his purpose and told him what he was to do and not do (he did not know this apart from God telling him). So from the beginning man was never meant to live apart from BOTH general revelation and special revelation. So again, I would say that general revelation is enough to condemn, but not to save (if it is viewed apart from special revelation).


----------

