# Calling all Van Tillians!



## JOwen (Apr 29, 2005)

Brothers,

Need some help with this question that keeps popping up in my mind as I read Chapter 8 of my beloved Confession (WCF). As a "soft" Clarkian I have the answer, but I'm interested in the Van Tillian response just to help out my polemic understanding of epistemology. Here goes.....

If Van Til insists that there is a creator/creature distinction so that man cannot think the same way God does at any point, then how could Christ be of two distinct NATURES and one PERSON? In the PERSON of Christ (where creature and creator meet), why is this not the intersection between God\'s thoughts and our own?

"Person" requires thinking (and more, I know). But because both natures meet in one PERSON "without conversion, composition, or confusion", this would necessitate an intersection of Divine and human, else there would be two persons instead of one.

Not picking a fight. I really want to know the Van Til mind on this one. And be gentle. I'm a pastor, not a philosopher


Kind regards,

Jerrold H. Lewis

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by JOwen]


----------



## crhoades (Apr 29, 2005)

Paradox?

Sorry for not answering directly but many on this board that have followed Van Tillian threads will appreciate the sick humor.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 29, 2005)

Would not the distinction be that a _sinful_ person is unable to think the same way that God does at any point?


----------



## JOwen (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Would not the distinction be that a _sinful_ person is unable to think the same way that God does at any point?



I believe Van Til makes the analogical claim, not on the noetic effect of sin but on the creator/creature distinction. God is "wholly other" and therefore our knowledge and God's cannot be the same. 

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis


----------



## BrianLanier (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> I believe Van Til makes the analogical claim, not on the noetic effect of sin but on the creator/creature distinction. God is "wholly other" and



I believe this quote from Paul Manata will be helpful:



> I would say the main issue in the clark-van til controversy was over the difference between our thoughts and God's thoughts. Clark held a quantatative difference (i.e., God knows more than us) and Van Til held both a quantatative as well as qualatative difference.
> 
> So, Van Til charged Clark with denying the creator/creature distinction and Clark, based of his misunderstanding of Van Til's use of the term "analogy" (which was, I admit, partly the fault of some of the Van Tilians for not being clear) charged Van Til with being an irrationalist, leading to the conclusion that we can't know God but only an analogy of God.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 4-30-2005 by BrianLanier]


----------



## JOwen (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JOwen_
> ...




Brother,

Thanks for the interesting quote. It does not answer my question however.

Still looking for the Van Til vantage point on this question.

Kind regads,
Jerrold


----------



## JOwen (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> JOwen attributes to Van Til this claim:
> 
> 
> ...




The phrase _In the sense that_ (and its explanation) does not alleviate the problem of Van Til's creature/creator distinction that, as far as I can tell, is the rubbing point between the two epistemological views. I go back to my point. If human thought does not coincide with divine at any single point, how could the hypo-static union of Christ's two natures be found in one person?

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis


----------



## JOwen (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> VT wrote: "his awareness of meaning of anything, in his mental grasp or understanding of anything, man is at each point dependent upon a prior act of unchangeable understanding and revelation on the part of God."
> 
> ...



But if man's knowlege is dependant on God's knowlege (and I believe it is), and man's knowlege is only anological (not univocal), then how can there be a meeting of two _natures_ in one _person_ in Christ? Christ did not have two different thoughts on knowlege or he would not have been one in PERSON. Are you saying that Jesus Christ, even now in heaven only understands truth (according to his human nature) anologically? As He is now in heaven, are His "person thoughts" anological or univocal?

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis


----------



## JOwen (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> I saw this thread and saw that first, van Til was misquoted and second that you were not getting the answers you wanted, so I thought I would add my two-cents. I really don't post here and I can't get into an extended debate. Furthermore, I really don't discuss things with Clarkians anymore since I haven't seen anyone of them define "knowledge" so that I even know what they mean by saying X can't know something by his senses, or X's knowledge coincides at no point is heretical. Having said that I'll try and point out what I see as the problems and maybe we can have one more back and forth.



I appreciate your time. 




> 1) There are plenty of things we don't understand about the hypostatic union, it is called a high and holy mystery. I wouldn't put my eggs all in this basket, then.



I agree with you about the mystery of the hypostatic union. Having said that, my question does not come from placing all my eggs in one basket, but from the doctrine of "Christ the Mediator" in the WCF. The statement is clear that there are two natures in one person. If the human nature is expressed in the PERSON of Christ then so is the divine. And if the divine is expressed then there must be a one-to-one correlation between the knowledge of God and man or Christ would be two persons.



> 2) Are you implying that _all_ knowledge claims attributed to Jesus are to be attributed to the one person and thus attributed to both natures?



If I understand this question correctly then I believe the answer is yes to all "knowledge claims attributed to Jesus are to be attributed to the one person", and no to "thus attributed to both natures". The nature does not think or know, only the _person_ thinks and knows.



> 3) What does Van Til mean by analogy?



He seems to mean several things. Not the least of which is a non-coinciding knowledge.




> 4) What did Jesus mean by saying that He lived not by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God and how is it different than this claim: "his awareness of meaning of anything, in his mental grasp or understanding of anything, man is at each point dependent upon a prior act of unchangeable understanding and revelation on the part of God?"
> 
> 
> > Not sure there is a difference with one exception: what kind of knowledge was it? Analogical or univocal.
> ...


----------

