Hanniah the Prophet renders van tillian apologetics useless

Status
Not open for further replies.

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
Did I happen to mention this great video on Theistic Mutualism? There are many roads and vague notions to that destination.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Sorry, I don’t think he addresses some of the charges against CVT as far as idealism is concerned or his apologetics. But it’s a good listen nonetheless and I think there is a general concern that Aquinas may have espoused a form of theistic mutualism but he does not make such a claim outright.

I don't possibly see how Aquinas could have espoused theistic mutualism. There is one name above all in classical theism that is against theistic mutualism, and that is Aquinas. Even non-Nicene thinkers like Owen Strachan concede as much. Theistic mutualist John Frame attacks Aquinas precisely because Aquinas holds to classical theism.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
There is a difference between knowing That God exists and what kind of God exists. Natural revelation claims the former, not the latter. That is completely legitimate.
I meant solely deduced. Or that as a foundation of apologetic apart from divine revelation.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
I don't possibly see how Aquinas could have espoused theistic mutualism. There is one name above all in classical theism that is against theistic mutualism, and that is Aquinas. Even non-Nicene thinkers like Owen Strachan concede as much. Theistic mutualist John Frame attacks Aquinas precisely because Aquinas holds to classical theism.
Yes, you are right. I’m thinking of another discussion - reformed forum - where the Roman Catholic conception of the fall of Adam is discussed. My bad. Pastor Tipton is expressing that CVT stood against mutualism in this video. My apology.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Hanniah the profit renders van tillian apologetics useless.

The reason this is the case is because van tillian presuppositionalism is supposed to show the necessity of the Christian worldview.

The problem is the format of these arguments attempt to show that the triune God of scripture is true my necessity.

This is where Hanniah the prophet becomes a problem

Hanniah is a false prophet who speaks in the name of the real guy who is mentioned in Jeremiah 28 verses 15 to 17.

Jeremiah accuses him of lying about what God told him and God subsequently executes Hanniah.

The problem here is this proves that you can actually reference and talk about the real God and also tell a false story about the real God.

Against this vantillianism is basically helpless.

For there is nothing in all the world that a Vantillian can do to stop someone from saying

"look I get that there needs to be a solution for the one in the many found in God and it can be a trinity. However I think Jesus predicted a false prophecy and therefore can't be God incarnate"

The vantillion can attempt to do several things from here but all of them fail some examples are:

1. Argue for a necessity of a messiah.
This doesn't work however because if you prove the necessity of a messiah all you've done is prove the basic format of the Jesus story you haven't actually proven that Jesus is the character that actually fulfilled the story.

2. Try to argue from the some kind of timing mechanism from the Bible like Daniel 9.

This might perhaps work against a Jew but it will not work against someone who can be more aggressive against the text.

For example a generic philosophical theist could be absolutely persuaded by a vantillion style argument regarding the one in the many while also believing that the Christian God is real .


However there's no reason to accept that because God solves the one in the many problem that nobody is lying about Moses making a bunch of laws, or that Hezekiah defeated armies, or pretty much all the bible specific content.

This generic theist can just assert he believes in
Pre-biblical revelation, which would be defined as the prerequisite knowledge for being able to read the Bible.

If you did not know how to read or speak you couldn't gain the knowledge of Moses.

Such a man would basically have a minimal theism devoid of third party prophets and angelic messengers.

3. The last recourse of a Vantillian would be to assert somehow I need for these third party profits in order to know these things.

If one were to say you needed these profits in order to know these things because God hadn't revealed to you these things except for the Bible then the argument becomes self refuting.

There are lots of characters in the Bible who predate the Bible who also know things such as Noah from Genesis 9:24, who knew his son saw him naked.

Conclusion:

I'm forced to conclude because of the above that the van till followers really don't have an proof for Christianity.

For Christianity is a claim about what God has done, one of many others which cannot be excluded just because you have belief in the same God.
I have to say it seems like, from a redneck Florida's boy POV, your shooting buckshot at Van Til. I think the major problem would be "sure anyone can believe in the Christian God and still go to hell, including philosophical theists". It takes faith to be saved, which is a gift from God.
Also you have problems with circularaty and evidences.

Evidence is fine from a Vantillian perspective as long as they are placed in the proper perspective. Circularaty is inevitable, after postmodernism we learned, what Van Til always said, we reason in circles. I assume things and than I try justify those assumptions by assuming those assumptions. Everyone does it.

Evidences are legitimate because they lend credibility to what we're saying, but they don't prove it on there own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top