# Van Til and apparent contradictions.



## jwright82 (Sep 16, 2011)

I believe that this is one of the hardest elements of Van Til's ideas to understand. So I thought I would open up a discussion on it and offer my own explinination as to what I think he was saying. 

First off I think that all he was refering to was basically a paradox and not a contradiction. Because we are creatures our ability to comprehend certian things is limited. Autonomous reason beleives that it can understand anything but that is not so. There are many things about God that we will never be able to understand because they are a mystery to us but that is o.k. because we must start with humility and go from there. Now it is the case that simply throwing the label of mystery on something is a little unfair, so I will deal with that next.

When someone tells me that they like my sweater I can in no way tell if they are being honest through the use of reason. For all practical purposes it doesn't matter but hypothetically if they are lying than I would never know. How could I use reason to peel back their mind and see if they are lying? I couldn't, hence a limitation on reason. In the same way I could never know things like why God allows certian kinds of evil to take place unless he reveals that to me. So in that sense it is a mystery that reason cannot coprehend. Is he under any obligation to tell any of us why he does what he does? No he is not.

We need to embrace mystery as essential to our apologetic. It is a mystery that we affirm both divine soverighnty and human responsibility at the same time. The only time we get a contradiction is when we start abstractly looking at these ideas. That is, how we define the terms can lead to contradictory ideas. If man is completly free in choosing things and God is completly soverighn in his dealings than that is a contradiction. If we affirm God's soverighnty and limit man's freedom than we no longer have a contradiction but a mystery. 

I hope this makes sense, as much as we can make sense out of it. I look forward to any questions, comments, or criticisms.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 16, 2011)

I believe there must be some divine check on _every_ idolatry. Including the idolatry of the power of the human intellect. There are limits placed, beyond which we may not transgress, or pry into divine workings that belong to the "secret things" of God, that belong to his "higher ways."

And because there are necessary limits, there are inevitable mysteries, yea _eternal_ mysteries. Not mysteries to Him who is eternal and exhaustive in his infinite knowledge and comprehension; but mysteries for us, for whom there will always be an infinite increase of the mind of God to explore, no matter how much our individual capacity has been enlarged and filled.

There are realms of divine thought unknown to us, and which would be utterly unsafe for us to penetrate. The proof of this is found at the bounds and limits of the present revelation. There are some who have died at the bounds. There are some who have lived, but been broken severely at the bounds. There are some who have denied the faith at the bounds, saying, "If I cannot make sense of it, it cannot be true."

If we make our reception of revelation ultimately contingent on our ability to bring it into subjection to our mind, we do not speak with Paul, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" Rom.11:33-34.

We also fail to reckon ourselves as not better than the "little child," which Jesus stood in the midst of his pride-prone disciples, and instructed them by it on the necessary humble admission to his kingdom (Mk.9:33-37, and other scriptures). The child does not understand many things that are beyond him now, and perhaps forever beyond him for all he knows. But the truth he knows is no less true for his limitations.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 16, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I believe there must be some divine check on _every_ idolatry. Including the idolatry of the power of the human intellect. There are limits placed, beyond which we may not transgress, or pry into divine workings that belong to the "secret things" of God, that belong to his "higher ways."
> 
> And because there are necessary limits, there are inevitable mysteries, yea _eternal_ mysteries. Not mysteries to Him who is eternal and exhaustive in his infinite knowledge and comprehension; but mysteries for us, for whom there will always be an infinite increase of the mind of God to explore, no matter how much our individual capacity has been enlarged and filled.
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> First off I think that all he was refering to was basically a paradox and not a contradiction.



I addressed this a few years ago and met with an unhappy response. With trepidation I must say that CVT's "paradox" is presented as "contradiction" when it is understood that the "paradox" is only resolved in God Himself. In other words, the apparent contradiction remains unresolved to the subject knowing. Further, whereas traditional theology maintains the regula fidei and demands "categorical" distinctions, CVT taught a method of paradox and made fairly plain statements against classical distinctions. I think the problem can be traced back to a misunderstanding of the archetype/ectype distinction. CVT's paradox arises from the inability of the human mind to correspond ectypal and archetypal theology. This means he was making a leap from what can be known to what can't be known about God. Traditionally, ectypal theology corresponds to archetypal theology simply in virtue of the fact that it is God's revelation of Himself accommodated to human capacity. No correspondence needs to be attempted. The mysteries of the faith are beyond reason but not contrary to reason. What can't be known about God is simply off limits.


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 17, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Traditionally, ectypal theology corresponds to archetypal theology simply in virtue of the fact that it is God's revelation of Himself accommodated to human capacity. No correspondence needs to be attempted.


 That's a beautiful statement, and answers a question I've had but haven't known how to express. Thank you.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 18, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > First off I think that all he was refering to was basically a paradox and not a contradiction.
> ...



Agreed and I don't see where you and he disagree. Van Til, it seems to me, was simply working out a philosophical consequence of our theology to develop an apologetic. He simply saw the limitations of reason in the correct light, unlike Kant. Hence some things are beyond human comprehension so at fist glance they "appear" contradictory but are in fact not. K. Scott Oliphint has gone so far as to challenge the idea that some have said that God cannot understand a contradiction. By that he simply says this "how do we know that God cannot understand a contradiction"? We know that we can't but that says nothing about God. Do we even know what it would mean to understand a contradiction? So we must stop at our own creaturelyness and say well we can't do it but we don't know if God can, that doesn't mean he can or does only that we wouldn't know.


----------



## MW (Sep 18, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> Agreed and I don't see where you and he disagree.



We disagree on the paradoxical method and the idea that the contradiction is only resolved in God. Paradox is resolved by "categories." E.g., the three and the one are three and one in two distinct senses, not in the same sense.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 19, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed and I don't see where you and he disagree.
> ...



Oh, I get you now. Saying that something is beyond human comprehension doesn't mean that it cannot be resolved only that it will appear unresovable from a certian point of view, most of these mysteries though are simply revealational matters. Like divine soverighnty and human responsebility. We can resolve the tension to a degree but there will still be some large areas of mysteries that fall into the realm of things that God has not seen fit to reveal to us. So the "paradox" is resolved in God beacause he knows how they are resolved. 

I can understand and appreciate your point of view but I do believe that Van Til is correct. I mean following Oliphint, how do we know that God cannot understand a contradiction? It seems to me that we are saying way too much when we say that not even God can do that.

---------- Post added at 07:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 AM ----------

Like the Trinity for example. He affirmed the Nicene creed but only pointed out that this is not all that can said on the matter. So he formulated his contraversial views in that vein. I think he had some interesting things to say and some odd things to say. But I think his general direction is right. I mean God does reveal himself as one person and three persons. How that is resolved is for God to know. We may not have to use the word person in the same sense either. I tend to side with Frame on this whole issue. The point is how much we can on our own make sense of God even through his revealation.


----------



## MW (Sep 19, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> I mean following Oliphint, how do we know that God cannot understand a contradiction? It seems to me that we are saying way too much when we say that not even God can do that.



Why ask? The attempt is once again being made to "correspond" ectypal theology with archetypal theology. This is the problem over and again with this method. It unnecessarily brings the two into conflict by prying into things which only God can know. Traditional reformed theology simply accepted that they corresponded and confined itself to ectypal (accommodated) theology. The essence of God _in se_ is out of bounds.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 19, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Why ask? The attempt is once again being made to "correspond" ectypal theology with archetypal theology. This is the problem over and again with this method. It unnecessarily brings the two into conflict by prying into things which only God can know. Traditional reformed theology simply accepted that they corresponded and confined itself to ectypal (accommodated) theology. The essence of God in se is out of bounds.



Well, but do think that Van Til (and Oliphint) were simply targeting a different theological view? I mean you are right, it is pointless to ask such questions unless one already says that God cannot know a contradiction for whatever philosophical reason. Van Til had a very keen eye to the philosophical consequences of our conceptions of God. He was doing theology to be sure but he well knew all the different philosophical errors about God and he, and seems Oliphint to, are trying to avoid those by their questions and viewpoints. I mean in a perfect world you are correct, we don't need to raise such questions. But our world is not perfect and so we have real apologetical need to defend the faith and there was none better than Van Til, In my humble opinion. 

I came to Van Til from a philosophical P.O.V., so I do understand that element of his thinking better than I understand the historical theological foundations of his thought. So I was not suprised to see him dealing with false ideas about God and where they can lead. My criticism of him though is why would a guy who wanted to reserve the Creator/creature distinction so bad have so much to say about the nature of God? I mean I understand and respect his views about God but I just don't quite get why he had so much to say about someone he rightly regarded as beyond human comprehension?


----------



## Apologist4Him (Oct 6, 2011)

Great thread James 

I especially relate with your response Bruce 


Trip Lee's "Inexhaustible" song comes to mind.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 21, 2011)

Apologist4Him said:


> Great thread James
> 
> I especially relate with your response Bruce
> 
> ...



I do think it is a good thing to discuss because it humbles before our Lord on account of our creaturleness. I love Van Til for that reason because he gives us a humble apologetic that puts us in our place rather than puts God in whatever place we wish to put him in. I am glad you enjoy it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 31, 2011)

Questions about the hypostatic union have been moved to that thread. Do not post the same question in two threads.


----------

