Presup Vs Classical Common Grace

[Corey Powell]

Hello, PB,

For an apologetics class I am planning to write a research paper comparing the conceptions of common grace in Presuppositional apologetics vs in Classical apologetics.

I'm not too sure where to start though. What books would you recommend that would shed some light on this?

Thanks!

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Hello, PB,

For an apologetics class I am planning to write a research paper comparing the conceptions of common grace in Presuppositional apologetics vs in Classical apologetics.

I'm not too sure where to start though. What books would you recommend that would shed some light on this?

Thanks!

You could probably write a whole paper just on the presuppositional side and what they've said about it.

Van Til gives mixed signals. On the one hand, he says there is "no common ground" and a complete "antithesis" between believers and unbelievers. So one would think that he opposes the idea of common grace.

But on the other hand, he explicitly endorses common grace.

To me that seems inconsistent, but I'm sure someone out there would beg to differ.

On the classical side, everyone believes that, because of common grace, there is some common ground between unbelievers and believers. They likely both have some appreciation for the laws of logic, the light of nature, etc. They may even both believe in the existence of a god or supreme deity.

 

[MW]

Van Til wrote a book on it. That would be the place to go. If you are looking for a point of comparison there is an excursus in Durham's Commentary on Revelation on common and special grace. The difference is that common grace pertained to the outward means of grace in tradition reformed theology, whereas through the Dutch school it was systematically extended to the whole natural order. The latter is partially in the former, but not to such an extent. There is a significant shift in emphasis with the latter school.

Have fun with Van Til's paradoxes. They will give you what is called a brain-strain in Australia.

 

[Keith Mathison]

Van Til wrote a number of articles and a book on the subject. Volume 8 and 9 of the Westminster Theological Journal contain three articles on common grace that are very useful for understanding his view. His book on the subject is called Common Grace and the Gospel. (William Masselink's book General Revelation and Common Grace gets into a lot of the weeds of the Dutch Reformed debate on the subject).

For an example of a non Van Tillian approach, you could read, for example, pages 654 ff. in volume 2 of Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There is also this recent work that was written from Van Til's lectures. I started listening to it this AM and there is a discussion about the debates within the Dutch Church (Kuyper vs. Hoeksema) where Van Tie's approach is discussed in some detail.

Amazon.com

 

[jwright82]

Hello, PB,

For an apologetics class I am planning to write a research paper comparing the conceptions of common grace in Presuppositional apologetics vs in Classical apologetics.

I'm not too sure where to start though. What books would you recommend that would shed some light on this?

Thanks!

I just finished reading the chapter on "common grace and scholasticism" in "The Defense Of The Faith" and there he ties much of the discussion to common notions. I think that is the divide between Van Til and CA.
For the latter I think of it like this, it seems for CA those common notions are true period. Meaning it makes no difference if Christian Theism is true those would be true. But for Van Til they wouldn't be true because they wouldn't exist, that's a transcendental method for argumentation of Christian Theism.
If the CA says no, they agree that they wouldn't exist then their arguments, if they have any, would disappear. Now if you start from common notions, as some of them seem to think implicitly, as being true regardless than you can only argue for God's existence that way (hence their critique, at least some of them) and then move on to their other arguments.
But Van Til doesn't affirm common notions like that, he (and Bahnsen is dead on here in his Van Til book) affirms common notions because of our being God's image bearer's (we can't use anything else) and psychologically we couldn't survive in the world without correctly thinking about stuff around us.
But epistemologically we differ in kind because of sin and total depravity. Ultimately two different views on the way things are, are in play (antithesis). Two different views equals two different kinds of explanations for the states of affairs.
Now common grace is just that restraining act of God in history to keep us as bad as we want to be. Hence common notions. I think any discussion of common grace in Van Til without reference to common notions is half the story.

 

[MW]

For the latter I think of it like this, it seems for CA those common notions are true period. Meaning it makes no difference if Christian Theism is true those would be true. But for Van Til they wouldn't be true because they wouldn't exist, that's a transcendental method for argumentation of Christian Theism.

This is a good point. The illustration I like to use is an empty barrel. CA argues the barrel is the same for believer and unbeliever. Both fill it with their own liquor. So this is common ground. For Van Til the barrel itself is not untainted. If you have put something else in the barrel it will flavour the liquor you put in it. You need your own barrel as a starting point. This is the self-revelation of God in Scripture.

 

[jwright82]

Van Til wrote a number of articles and a book on the subject. Volume 8 and 9 of the Westminster Theological Journal contain three articles on common grace that are very useful for understanding his view. His book on the subject is called Common Grace and the Gospel. (William Masselink's book General Revelation and Common Grace gets into a lot of the weeds of the Dutch Reformed debate on the subject).

For an example of a non Van Tillian approach, you could read, for example, pages 654 ff. in volume 2 of Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology.

Thanks for the Masslink book reference. I didn't know about that. I'm very interested in the Dutch Reformed debates on that, including the American side of those debates.

 

[MW]

For an example of a non Van Tillian approach, you could read, for example, pages 654 ff. in volume 2 of Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology.

Good recommendation! That will be more accessible and transparent than the Durham excursus. It might even show some traces of development in line with the Dutch tradition.

BTW, I am slowly progressing through your book. It is well written and a credit to you. I'm taking my time to make sure I fully understand your arguments. I also note the Van Til Group have put out a video on it. I might start a thread on it in the future and open it up for discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is a good point. The illustration I like to use is an empty barrel. CA argues the barrel is the same for believer and unbeliever. Both fill it with their own liquor. So this is common ground. For Van Til the barrel itself is not untainted. If you have put something else in the barrel it will flavour the liquor you put in it. You need your own barrel as a starting point. This is the self-revelation of God in Scripture.

I was just thinking about the issue of common grace this morning.

It seems that the starting point for many ideas of common grace is that because man has the capacity to reason, the common point is that you can depend upon man's reason to agree on common ideas.

Van Til expresses that the common ground is that men are treated in the image of God. That doesn't preclude two men from arriving at the same idea using reason, but it doesn't make reason the common starting point.

For instance, I can point out, as Christ did, that a red sky at sunset reveals that there will be no rain overnight. What I won't try to do is to make that fact solely true on the basis of autonomous human reason, as if that fact depends upon empirical observation for its verity.

 

[jwright82]

This is a good point. The illustration I like to use is an empty barrel. CA argues the barrel is the same for believer and unbeliever. Both fill it with their own liquor. So this is common ground. For Van Til the barrel itself is not untainted. If you have put something else in the barrel it will flavour the liquor you put in it. You need your own barrel as a starting point. This is the self-revelation of God in Scripture.

I like that, very Vantillian example I might add. I noticed that in debates with Classical people and Van Til's point made sense to me then. I saw how his general critique of CA can be true but maybe not always true of the person under criticism. I think more work needs to be done there and the Reformed Forum is doing it with Aquinas at least.
Basically what I noticed was that they rejected the TA but wanted to maintain common notions between both parties as if there existence or truth or falsity were irrelevant to CT being true or not. Hence why the TM is wrong and only their method is right.
But if they reject the idea that things wouldn't be different than their criticism of the TA went away, because it makes perfect sense to argue from the facts to the only reason the facts are what they are is because CT is true. Hence the legitimacy of the TA.
Plus I love your example because it's the same stuff being poured into the same thing but one is tainted and the other isn't. I love that example Mathew and I'm gonna borrow it if that's okay? I'll get you your royalties and all, my people can call your people and we can get it in writing (with loads and loads of tiny printed stuff so the lawyers get paid). Is that a saying in Australia I wonder, "my people will call your people"? I'm curious now. Great response my friend. No offense meant to lawyers of course.

 

[MW]

Plus I love your example because it's the same stuff being poured into the same thing but one is tainted and the other isn't. I love that example Mathew and I'm gonna borrow it if that's okay? I'll get you your royalties and all, my people can call your people and we can get it in writing (with loads and loads of tiny printed stuff so the lawyers get paid). Is that a saying in Australia I wonder, "my people will call your people"? I'm curious now. Great response my friend. No offense meant to lawyers of course.

If it works it's all yours. Anything to promote a better understanding.

I've heard that saying, but I don't know if businessmen use it. Many sayings come through movies and shows, I imagine.

 

[MW]

For instance, I can point out, as Christ did, that a red sky at sunset reveals that there will be no rain overnight. What I won't try to do is to make that fact solely true on the basis of autonomous human reason, as if that fact depends upon empirical observation for its verity.

Yes. At that point it's epistemic justification. The question will then be, How important is epistemic justification to the idea of the thing? Some would minimise it and only make it a starting-point; then they would say the two ideas can meet up at a later point; all's well that ends well. I think Van Til would say it is essential to the very idea of the thing. So if there are two different epistemic justifications there are in fact two different ideas.

 

[Knight]

BTW, I am slowly progressing through your book. It is well written and a credit to you. I'm taking my time to make sure I fully understand your arguments. I also note the Van Til Group have put out a video on it. I might start a thread on it in the future and open it up for discussion.

Please do.

 

[MW]

Please do.

Thanks for the gentle push. I will try next week if I can finish the book and watch the video on Monday.

 

[MW]

Yes. At that point it's epistemic justification. The question will then be, How important is epistemic justification to the idea of the thing? Some would minimise it and only make it a starting-point; then they would say the two ideas can meet up at a later point; all's well that ends well. I think Van Til would say it is essential to the very idea of the thing. So if there are two different epistemic justifications there are in fact two different ideas.

Providentially this just came up in recommended videos. It says it all.

 

[Keith Mathison]

Good recommendation! That will be more accessible and transparent than the Durham excursus. It might even show some traces of development in line with the Dutch tradition.

BTW, I am slowly progressing through your book. It is well written and a credit to you. I'm taking my time to make sure I fully understand your arguments. I also note the Van Til Group have put out a video on it. I might start a thread on it in the future and open it up for discussion.

Thank you for the kind words about the book. They've invited me to come on the podcast after they finish their critique to discuss all the issues, so hopefully that will shed some light on things.

 

[Knight]

Thank you for the kind words about the book. They've invited me to come on the podcast after they finish their critique to discuss all the issues, so hopefully that will shed some light on things.

I will wait for MW to start a new thread, but I have a few documents from the 1940s that might be of interest to you and the Van Til group.

 

[jwright82]

I will wait for MW to start a new thread, but I have a few documents from the 1940s that might be of interest to you and the Van Til group.

They interest me. You can PM those and your argument.
[automerge]1739408727[/automerge]

Thank you for the kind words about the book. They've invited me to come on the podcast after they finish their critique to discuss all the issues, so hopefully that will shed some light on things.

Look forward to it. Out of curiosity what did you think about my responses to this question and do you think they square with what Van Til said? I have yet to read your book so I'm sorry for that if you get into that stuff.
But I have a little longer of a argument in favor of my original point that I'd love to run past you, if you don't mind?