Can someone affirm Reformed Orthodoxy and not classical apologetics?

[jwright82]

I specifically said I was not making that argument.

As I said in my earlier remarks, I'm not 100% sure.


He attacked their prolegemona. That's not up for debate. Read Van Til's statements on the traditional method, and then read any Reformed prolegomena from Beza to Bavinck. Again, I am not saying Van Til is against their theology. I'm just pointing out a tension.

My statements weren't generalized. In any case, what do you think I was actually trying to prove?

I dont know what you were trying to prove. With all due respect my friend sometimes you over generalize but your right he was critical of the method not the content. But how does being critical of a method make one outside the fold?

 

[jwright82]

I would think that Reformed theology specifically militates against treating a singular method as the ultimate method. WLC 2 and WLC 4 both affirm a diversity of "methods" in epistemological warrant for belief either in God or in Scripture. But both also affirm that belief is not grounded in epistemological warrant, but rather in a work of the Spirit. And the Spirit is not to be reduced to any one method (or to method in the abstract) because "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8).

The legitimacy of various arguments only goes hand in hand with the futility of all arguments (and method) in themselves. Also, I'm fairly certain that Van Til was strictly against treating apologetics as prolegomena, because that is the error that he charged others with. If theology rules apologetics, then it seems a bit strange to say that theology must change because of one's apologetic. I think a distinction between apologetics and prolegomena could be helpful here. It would also be helpful to treat prolegomena as tools, not as the deductive basis of theology (if prolegomena was the deductive basis of theology, Scripture is unnecessary).

I've never, to my knowledge, argued for that. I do significant problems with the traditional method. But I would gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone defending the faith.

 

[jwright82]

Vos used Classical Argumentation and Van Til said Bavinck was still too much of a scholastic. Van Til critiqued Warfield on evidences, but agreed with Warfield, pace Kuyper, that apologetics was an objective enterprise. As to whether he was still in the fold, read all of Reformed systematics before the 20th century on the arguments for existence of God, then read van Til on them.

This is what I mean by over generalized statements. What is this even supposed to mean considering your later qualifications on what you said? Flesh out your arguments a little more, please.

 

[jwright82]

This is what I mean by over generalized statements. What is this even supposed to mean considering your later qualifications on what you said? Flesh out your arguments a little more, please.

By this i mean what does their influence on him theologically have to do with his criticism of them?

 

[RamistThomist]

This is what I mean by over generalized statements. What is this even supposed to mean considering your later qualifications on what you said? Flesh out your arguments a little more, please.

Flesh out what? My comments on Van Til's comments on Bavinck and Kuyper are fairly standard. I take it you mean Reformed prolegomena. I'm not going to copy and paste every page from every systematic in the last 400 years, but I can give it a go.

Hodge: Classical Arguments
Dabney: Classical Arguments
Shedd: Classical Arguments bordering on overkill
AA Hodge: Holds to faculty psychology.
Rutherford: Scholastic categories, but of a Scotist bent.
Perkins: Ramist Categories.
Turretin: Scholastic Categories.
Beza: Aristotelian categories.
Richard Muller: Basically anything.

 

[RamistThomist]

By this i mean what does their influence on him theologically have to do with his criticism of them?

I don't really understand this sentence. Are you saying their influence on Van Til? That's not really a point I was making.

 

[jwright82]

I don't really understand this sentence. Are you saying their influence on Van Til? That's not really a point I was making.

It means no one can deny their influence on him. They were influenced by reformed scholasticism ergo he was, despite his formal disagreements with their method. But he affirms sola scriptura, the archetypal/ectypal distinction (Horton's work on this which is ad nauseum), the Creator/creature distinction, etc. All part of the prolegomena of the reformed scholastics. So despite his best efforts he is within the fold. Except his rejection of traditional apologetics. But if thats the only part he disagreed with it seems odd to label him outside the fold.
It seems like an unnecessary burden to place on people that they can except everything reformed scholasticism says but if the reject traditional apologetics their not in the fold, unless I misunderstood you than please correct me?

 

[RamistThomist]

But he affirms sola scriptura, the archetypal/ectypal distinction (Horton's work on this which is ad nauseum), the Creator/creature distinction, etc. All part of the prolegomena of the reformed scholastics.

No one disputes that.

Except his rejection of traditional apologetics. But if thats the only part he disagreed with it seems odd to label him outside the fold.

It's hard to see CVT rallying around scholastic (and Aristotelian) categories of thought.

It seems like an unnecessary burden to place on people that they can except everything reformed scholasticism says but if the reject traditional apologetics their not in the fold, unless I misunderstood you than please correct me?

I'm not placing any burden on anyone. I'm not the one who came around and said the last four hundred years of apologetics and methodology was wrong and, by implication, we have to change.

 

[jwright82]

No one disputes that.


It's hard to see CVT rallying around scholastic (and Aristotelian) categories of thought.


I'm not placing any burden on anyone. I'm not the one who came around and said the last four hundred years of apologetics and methodology was wrong and, by implication, we have to change.

So to be orthodox one must adopt Aristolean categories? Hence traditional apologetics? That seems a stretch. But one other point you miss is Vantillians who do use the scholastic method and reject traditional apologetics. What about them?

 

[RamistThomist]

So to be orthodox one must adopt Aristolean categories?

No, but to continue in the steps of the Reformed scholastics, one has to be open to scholastic categories.

Hence traditional apologetics?

Must they use traditional apologetics? No. But at the same time neither can they condemn such apologetics as autonomous.

But one other point you miss is Vantillians who do use the scholastic method and reject traditional apologetics. What about them?

I didn't miss that point. I am aware of it. I think there is an uneasy tension. I have said about half a dozen times in this thread there is no formal contradiction between Van Tillians who use the scholastic method and their rejection of scholastic apologetics. That said, it is rather odd to embrace Van Tillianism and embrace Scholasticism and then read Van Til's history of Christian philosophy from Calvin to the present day.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

An embrace of Reformed orthodoxy must surely also include an acceptance of its teaching on natural theology. Does that mean that you have to agree entirely with Thomas Aquinas? No, not even on the subject of apologetics. While most contemporary proponents of classical apologetics are heavily influenced by Aquinas, many agree with Anselm on the ontological argument and think that Aquinas got this one wrong.

 

[jwright82]

No, but to continue in the steps of the Reformed scholastics, one has to be open to scholastic categories.


Must they use traditional apologetics? No. But at the same time neither can they condemn such apologetics as autonomous.


I didn't miss that point. I am aware of it. I think there is an uneasy tension. I have said about half a dozen times in this thread there is no formal contradiction between Van Tillians who use the scholastic method and their rejection of scholastic apologetics. That said, it is rather odd to embrace Van Tillianism and embrace Scholasticism and then read Van Til's history of Christian philosophy from Calvin to the present day.

Fair enough my friend what is the tension, if you'll indulge me? I don't see it. I've never to my knowledge condemned traditional apologetics anywhere. I have my reservations about it but I'm not prepared to post them quite yet. Do you believe if there are significant problems in their apologetics they should be supplemented with better methods and retain their theology and method?

 

[jwright82]

An embrace of Reformed orthodoxy must surely also include an acceptance of its teaching on natural theology. Does that mean that you have to agree entirely with Thomas Aquinas? No, not even on the subject of apologetics. While most contemporary proponents of classical apologetics are heavily influenced by Aquinas, many agree with Anselm on the ontological argument and think that Aquinas got this one wrong.

I've read different takes on this one. So honestly I don't know.

 

[RamistThomist]

Fair enough my friend what is the tension, if you'll indulge me?

Natural theology

Do you believe if there are significant problems in their apologetics they should be supplemented with better methods and retain their theology and method?

Theoretically, yes. But I don't believe there are problems in classical apologetics, so it is a moot point for me.

 

[The Original Secession]

To embrace Reformed Orthodoxy, in my mind, would require a pretty decisive jettisoning of van Tilianism. This is simply because van Til denied Natural Theology and most of the historic apologetic ideas of the Christian Church before Kant and the broader German Idealist movement. I do think we need to remember that van Til was for a generation, particularly in American Presbyterianism, a badge of orthodoxy. If one was not a van Tilian, they must have been a Barthian or a liberal. I think that is in part why the label of "van Tilian/ Presuppositional" has been slow to be jettisoned because it was seen as the only proper way to do apologetics.
I do think there is some inconsistency in later orthodoxy, particularly with those that tried to blend Descartes and Reformed Orthodoxy- I think a guy unfortunately named Salomon van Til was one of the leading proponents of Cartesian Reformed Scholasticism.

 

[jwright82]

Natural theology

Theoretically, yes. But I don't believe there are problems in classical apologetics, so it is a moot point for me.

Than how would you answer the question, without using a TA, of how would our world be different in experience if CT were not true? How does natural theology solve that?

 

[jwright82]

To embrace Reformed Orthodoxy, in my mind, would require a pretty decisive jettisoning of van Tilianism. This is simply because van Til denied Natural Theology and most of the historic apologetic ideas of the Christian Church before Kant and the broader German Idealist movement. I do think we need to remember that van Til was for a generation, particularly in American Presbyterianism, a badge of orthodoxy. If one was not a van Tilian, they must have been a Barthian or a liberal. I think that is in part why the label of "van Tilian/ Presuppositional" has been slow to be jettisoned because it was seen as the only proper way to do apologetics.
I do think there is some inconsistency in later orthodoxy, particularly with those that tried to blend Descartes and Reformed Orthodoxy- I think a guy unfortunately named Salomon van Til was one of the leading proponents of Cartesian Reformed Scholasticism.

Same question I asked.

 

[jwright82]

An embrace of Reformed orthodoxy must surely also include an acceptance of its teaching on natural theology. Does that mean that you have to agree entirely with Thomas Aquinas? No, not even on the subject of apologetics. While most contemporary proponents of classical apologetics are heavily influenced by Aquinas, many agree with Anselm on the ontological argument and think that Aquinas got this one wrong.

Same question I asked.

 

[ReformedChristian]

I use both apologetic methods.

 

[RamistThomist]

Than how would you answer the question, without using a TA, of how would our world be different in experience if CT were not true? How does natural theology solve that?

I have no idea. It's a rather strange thought experiment and I really don't know what answers I would come up with. Using the valuable tools of analytic philosophy, I would probably respond along the lines of Possible Worlds Semantics.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I’m not sure where I am in the discussion of an apologetic “method”, as it appears to me I use different “methods” – presuppositional at times, also evidential, no doubt some classical, and intuitive.

Perhaps I read Aquinas wrong, but as regards faith I don’t see the will as involved, save after the fact of regeneration, which has captured my will to cleave to Him whose heart and flesh were cleft for me, that I might enter into His life and love.

In some respects it appears to me I am a simpleton in these matters. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, but I’m comfortable with it.

 

[jwright82]

I have no idea. It's a rather strange thought experiment and I really don't know what answers I would come up with. Using the valuable tools of analytic philosophy, I would probably respond along the lines of Possible Worlds Semantics.

I think the problem is its a new angle on the TA that's so simple its odd. Yet the consequences are immense. In this scenario if the person is arguing we must use classical apologetics because that's what reformed orthodox used but cannot give an answer it shows an inherent weakness in the method and it needs to be adjusted or abandoned.
If they try to answer yes (their using a TA and defeating their argument) if no (than their positing an autonomous world destroying any value of classical theology).
So the question is would we even be able to talk of analytic philosophy or possible world semantics if CT were false? Arguing for nostalgic purposes is foolish and closer to roman Catholic thinking than anything else. That's the point I'll admit the simplicity of it is confusing but if you step outside of classical apologetics thinking and look at the question its rather simple. But it shows an an inherent problem in your argument.
This is how a Vantillian apologist operates, who has used this method for over a decade.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think the problem is its a new angle on the TA that's so simple its odd. Yet the consequences are immense. In this scenario if the person is arguing we must use classical apologetics because that's what reformed orthodox used but cannot give an answer it shows an inherent weakness in the method and it needs to be adjusted or abandoned.

I don't see the problem nor an inherent weakness in historic apologetics.

So the question is would we even be able to talk of analytic philosophy or possible world semantics if CT were false?

I still don't understand the question.

Arguing for nostalgic purposes is foolish and closer to roman Catholic thinking than anything else. That's the point I'll admit the simplicity of it is confusing but if you step outside of classical apologetics thinking and look at the question its rather simple.

I use historic apologetics because I believe it is true, not because of nostalgia.

But it shows an an inherent problem in your argument.

No one concedes this point.

 

[jwright82]

I don't see the problem nor an inherent weakness in historic apologetics.


I still don't understand the question.


I use historic apologetics because I believe it is true, not because of nostalgia.


No one concedes this point.

What's there to understand, in what experiential way would things be different if CT were false? Thats not hard outside of you have to lay aside your CA thinking, worldview, to answer it.

 

[RamistThomist]

What's there to understand, in what experiential way would things be different if CT were false? Thats not hard outside of you have to lay aside your CA thinking, worldview, to answer it.

It's like asking how would breathing be different if there weren't oxygen. There might be an answer to it, but I don't think I really need to think about it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Are you asking, "How would the world be different if you were wrong?" Since I don't think I am wrong, there isn't too much to say to that.

 

[RamistThomist]

I suppose if classical theism weren't true, I'd probably be a Nietzschean and dominate my enemies.

 

[jwright82]

I suppose if classical theism weren't true, I'd probably be a Nietzschean and dominate my enemies.

Would you even exist?

 

[jwright82]

It's like asking how would breathing be different if there weren't oxygen. There might be an answer to it, but I don't think I really need to think about it.

There is an answer to my question but its one your not willing to consider. They used CA because that's all they had pure and simple. But we have so many methods at our disposal that one can now be orthodox and adopt any number of methods and we're all "kosher" so to speak. If you adopt that view it alleviates the problem and we can all be orthodox and debate which one's better. Thats the only way out.
If not than answer the question, here's a simplified version how would a pizza be different if CT weren't true? Would it even exist at all?

 

[RamistThomist]

Would you even exist?

Possibly, but not necessarily. I default to Plantinga's Nature of Necessity on that point.