Vincent Cheung

[ChristianTrader]

Paul,
I went back to the subduing science book, to re-read some stuff. I now realize why you asked me whether or not, the authors were truly Van-Tillian.

In the endnotes, the authors talk about the Christians who have gone into print with anti-realists views. They only found two: Gordon Clark and John Byl. They then say, that they appreciate their dedication to scripture, but that they have to disagree in significant ways with their approach.

So I guess, you assumed that they must be closet clarkians instead of true vantillians.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
One Last Question about Joseph and how to apply that to my life.

If you went to some sheep herdering country someplace in the world. And you found a father, and many sons that were in the same situation as Joseph and His Father;

And You asked the father or the son if they were 100% certain that the others brothers were still in the field (or wherever the last place they were seen). Would they say yes, it is impossible for them to have either snuck off or been captured by raiders?

I want that kind of certainty but do not know how to get it, if I assume that I have made various mistakes in the past (that I have corrected).

CT

I just think your view of knowledge is too strict at times. We can have justified true beliefs and that is made intelligible within a philosophically certain transcendental worldview.

But is this not a cop out? You used the "know" that Joseph had to mean that he was absolutely philosophically certain that his brothers were out with the herd. That means that by the law of non contradiction, he would have to have the same philosophical certainty that the negation (the brothers did not sneak off, or be captured by bandits, etc) was false.

There are only a few ways to save yourself.

1)You have to say that yes Joseph had philosophical certainty about his brothers, and if I was in the same situation I can have the same certainty as well.

2) Joseph had philosophical certainty but that was a special case and we do not have the same certainty today in such a situation.

3)Joseph had philosophical certainty about a weaker claim (The brothers are out there unless something caused them to leave; they did not just vanish off the face of the earth)

4)And anything I cannot think of currently.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Paul,
Can have you read this article? http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm

It looks like an anti-realist article that turns realist on the last page.

Also, what do you think the is the content of special revelation with respect to general revelation? Are the same or different?

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
yes because Van Til was a realist and believed in emperical knowledge. You can find his writtings in Bahnsen's book on him, in the section "emperical knowledge."

Just to make sure we are on the same page, I am advocating theoretical or scientific anti-realism. We can say that we see a 50 foot tree, but we cannot say with certainty, why the tree grew to be 50 feet vs. 45 feet etc. Here is where affirming the consequent becomes unbearable.

You cannot prove that E=mc^2.

Things like this.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Paul,
Can have you read this article? http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm

It looks like an anti-realist article that turns realist on the last page.

Also, what do you think the is the content of special revelation with respect to general revelation? Are the same or different?

CT

no, general only gives condeming knowledge.

I have read that article. Non-Christians cannot account for realism in science (the popular view). Christians can.

My view of special is that it includes everything that general does and in a clear fashion.

The issue is if there is actual realism in science to account for. I would say no. And to claim that there is, does nothing but make it harder to overthrow less useful theories.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata
yes because Van Til was a realist and believed in emperical knowledge. You can find his writtings in Bahnsen's book on him, in the section "emperical knowledge."

Just to make sure we are on the same page, I am advocating theoretical or scientific anti-realism. We can say that we see a 50 foot tree, but we cannot say with certainty, why the tree grew to be 50 feet vs. 45 feet etc. Here is where affirming the consequent becomes unbearable.

You cannot prove that E=mc^2.

Things like this.

CT

from my understanding scientific non-realism says that science can give us no truth about the world. Is that what you're saying?

[Edited on 11-23-2004 by Paul manata]

Yes. The best we can do with (the E=mc^2 example) is say that using this theory gives us useful predictions. Tomorrow we may develop a theory that is more useful.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Paul,
Can have you read this article? http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm

It looks like an anti-realist article that turns realist on the last page.

Also, what do you think the is the content of special revelation with respect to general revelation? Are the same or different?

CT

no, general only gives condeming knowledge.

I have read that article. Non-Christians cannot account for realism in science (the popular view). Christians can.

My view of special is that it includes everything that general does and in a clear fashion.

The issue is if there is actual realism in science to account for. I would say no. And to claim that there is, does nothing but make it harder to overthrow less useful theories.

CT

yes, special tells us what general does. But if they are the *same* then general tells us what special does. This is *not* the case. Indeed, why even call it general and special? If they're the *same?*

I wrote kind of unclearly, I meant that it includes everything that general does plus more. And on top of that it is more clear.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader


Yes. The best we can do with (the E=mc^2 example) is say that using this theory gives us useful predictions. Tomorrow we may develop a theory that is more useful.

CT

to black and white, CT. I agree that we may find something that fits the facts better than e=mc2. But I wouldn't say that this is the case in all cases.

On what cases would you say that a scientific theory is true and why would you say that it is.

Then there is the question of even if a theory could fit all the observations we throw at it, there is no reason to believe only one theory can do such.

In science, aren't we studying God's world and how He made it? Did God not give us the ability to understand and, therefore, have greater dominion over the earth.

First are you saying that in order to have dominion we have to actually understand why various things act in certain ways? That is definitely not the case. For example, we can say that when we give our plants more water, they grow up to be big and beautiful (very big simplication), but we dont have to understand why giving more water does that.

Has science found NO truths? Is it not true that qunine relieves Malaria?

Would you call that science? And again I am defending scientific or theoretical anti-realism. In you example, there is no theory involved or necessary. It is just gained by simple observation (I have the symptoms of Malaria, I take quinine, I no longer have those symptoms). A scientific anti-realist would say that you could not develop a theory of why and prove it to be true.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Also the theory that fits the facts better than a previous theory, may actually be farther away from reality than the previous theory. Of course we do not care, we just want to go for useful (or at least what we think is useful). We might actually end up with another Fen Phen. If we do, then we alter our theory and do something else.

Lastly, Kuhn of scientific revolutions fame, was an anti-realist.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
well I guess you need to define science, then.

Science would be the theories behind why we see the various observations that we see. Why is this bridge stronger than that bridge.

CT

 

[RickyReformed]

Where do you guys find all this time? I'm still working on my response to Paul's last post to me. I'll post it after Thanksgiving, once I get a chance to work on it some more.

Originally posted by Paul manata
Has science found NO truths? Is it not true that qunine [sic] relieves Malaria?

In the mean time, I'm curious about this quote. Can you say that all persons with Malaria will be relieved by medicine X? As a person who works in the medical environment, I can tell you that not every person with say a staph infection will respond to a given antibiotic (for example, Vancomycin). Also some people react differently to the same medicine; and the same medicine will not respond the same way in the same person (for instance, when you develop a tolerance.)

Here's an example of science's ability to determine causation:

How science can be useful though false is illustrated in a delightful textbook on inductive logic. Milk fever, the illustration goes, until late in the nineteenth century, was a disease frequently fatal to cows. A veterinarian proposed the theory that it was caused by bacteria in the cows´ udders. The cure therefore was to disinfect the cow, which the veterinarian proceeded to do by injecting Lugol solution into each teat. The mortality under this treatment fell from a previous ninety percent to thirty. Does not this success full treatment prove that the bacteria were killed and that Lugol cured the disease? Unfortunately another veterinarian was caught without the Lugol solution one day, and he injected plain boiled water. The cow recovered. Had water killed the bacteria? What is worse, it was found later that air could be pumped into the cows´ udders with equally beneficial results. The original science was wrong, but it cured the cows nonetheless.

A closer examination of the logic of verification should be made. In the example above, the first veterinarian probably argued: If bacteria cause milk fever, Lugol solution will cure; the disinfectant does cure it; therefore I have verified the hypothesis that bacteria cause milk fever. This argument, as would be explained in a course of deductive logic, is a fallacy. Its invalidity may perhaps be more clearly seen in an artificial example: If a student doggedly works through Plato´s Republic in Greek, he will know the Greek language; this student knows Greek; therefore he has read Plato´s Republic. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent, and it is invalid whenever used. But it is precisely this fallacy that is used in every case of scientific verification. If the law of gravitation is true, a freely falling body will have a constant acceleration, and the eclipse will begin at 2:58:03p.m.; but freely falling bodies do have a constant acceleration and the eclipse did begin at 2:58:03 p.m.; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Or, if the periodic table of atomic weights is true, a new element of such and such a weight must exist; this new element has now been discovered; therefore the period table is verified. And, if I eat roast turkey and plum pudding, I lose my appetite; I have lost my appetite; therefore, we had roast turkey for dinner. All these arguments are equally invalid. But sometimes there is an adverse reaction if it is claimed that verification never proves the truth of a scientific law. Is it worse to "attack" science, or to "murder" logic?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Bingo, Rick.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

If you do not like anti-realism then why do you talk so highly about Kuhn and his book?

The only way to defend realism is to say that utility = truth. This is exactly what Bahnsen brutalized in his article on pragmaticism.

As an aside, Scripture does affirm that we can justify things by observation. It says that by three or more witnesses, one is justified in executing someone in a death penalty crime. If observations were not able to justify things, then we could not say such things. But to take the next step and say that I can justify a theory behind why something happens is to go warrant.

If you wish to keep your pearls and stay a theoretical realist, then be my guest.

CT

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Paul manata


Also, I'm taking Sudduth's advice. I'm gonna stop talking to Scripturalists until they give a descent answer to the analytic question about knowledge.


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Paul manata]

I know I am jumping in with the allligators, but what do you mean by "Scripturalists"?

Thanks

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Paul manata


Also, I'm taking Sudduth's advice. I'm gonna stop talking to Scripturalists until they give a descent answer to the analytic question about knowledge.


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Paul manata]

I know I am jumping in with the allligators, but what do you mean by "Scripturalists"?

Thanks

I believe it is a term used when people believe that the only thing that one can trust is something directly derivable from scripture. It is usually a derogatory term.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

It being a derogatory term, is independent from what the original author means or did not mean.

Terms do change over time and the original author has little to no power over it.

Now if you meant it in a loving way. So be it. Thanks.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

It is really of no consequence, either way. You meant no harm (if harm can be meant by the term).

Either way, I am not Clark or Robbins, but I am a anti-realist. I can be skeptical of empirically deriving a true scientific theory and not talk in a monotone voice. I can also say that senses are generally okay, but can fail from time to time. Hence we do not execute on the testimony of one witness. That is basically all for now.

CT

 

[RamistThomist]

I am really slow (no comment) but as a presuppositionalist myself, what is the difference between affirming Scripturalism and affirming that the God revealed in the Bible provides the preconditions for intelligibility?

 

[ChristianTrader]

I personally know that I am one by observing myself etc. and I can justify my claim to you and anyone else who wants to know that I am a man by having a few witnesses tell you that I am one (or other things that count as witnesses).

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
I personally know that I am one by observing myself etc. and I can justify my claim to you and anyone else who wants to know that I am a man by having a few witnesses tell you that I am one (or other things that count as witnesses).

CT

so your observations can get you to true reports about the world (o.k., that's what realists say?).

Remember I said that I was a theoretical or scientific anti- realist. I am not sure how many complete anti-realists exist. Might have to investigate it someday. I can say the plant has grown five inches overnight. I cannot say with certainty that the reason that it grew five inches overnight was X, Y and Z. I could probably get you a neat theory, but would not call it the truth.

Your justification is the testimony of others? How would they know (remember your definition of know, now)?

My justification to you was that. If you are not certain by having people looking at my outsides, you can have them check me out naked, take my blood, take my temp, listen to me talk, etc.

Maybe you look like one on the outside and act like one, but you could be a robot designed by a scientist.

This is possible, but I am not sure how being a realist, makes you avoid these questions. In a realist, it is impossible to create a six million dollar man?

You could be the military's high-tech artificial life experiement. Besides, how do you know that other people ever are reliable, i.e., tell the truth?

The Bible says that with two or more witnesses a claim is established. If you want more than that..... Now it is possible that they could be lying to you. However the Bible says that you are justified in believing them until such a time. If they are found to have defrauded you (for some reason), you extract your loses based on the false info and get more witnesses.

What other things that count as wittnesses? Drs using science to check your insides?

Sure, you will have witnesses at some point testifying to the accuracy of the equipment. Go ahead and use it.

I still don't see how you know with philosopic certainity and rejecting science as giving us any truth.

I think you can get certainty by observation (Whether you gain knowledge by the senses or just remember it etc. is neither here no there for this discussion). I can't give you philosophical certainty that O.J. did it, just by my testimony.

Also I do not see how you can get philosophical certainty and commit a logical fallacy. Unless you want to say affirming the consequent is not a logical fallacy, I would love to hear a response.

is your argument: if I am a man wittnesses will attest to it. Wittnesses attest to it. Therefore I am a man.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Paul manata]

Isn't that affirming the consequent?

It would be "God said that two or more witnesses establish a claim. I have two or more witnesses. The claim is established."

I would say that I have my own observations testifying to the claim. The witnesses would make it go beyond my personal beliefs to making the beliefs public and able to undergo scrutiny.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=232&1=314&3=8784

That looks neat. Have you listened to it. I asked you about it a few months back and you had not.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
CT,

that was funny, in a good way. Not mocking you just thought some of the stuff was funny.

I think you should check out anti-realism since you could be: rational non-realism (with the sub-categories of: pragmatism, operationism, phenomenalism), or a non-rational non-realist.

As far as your two-three witness argument. I (seriously) don't know if you're half-way pulling my leg? The verses were not meant to be used in the fashion you just did. How bout this: scientific realism is true because 10 out of 12 scientists testify to it? You can critique their claims just as I did to your witnesses.

But they cannot observe scientific realism. It is a concept or theory. So how can they testify before the judges or whoever? They can say they believe in it, but that is not the same issue. You can critique my witnesses based on what they saw of me.

Next, you say that I am using the verses badly. So you have that witnesses can testify that I am the man who murdered the sailor with a knife on 44th street or committed adultery with Mrs. Jones but they cant testify that I am simply a man?

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=232&1=314&3=8784

That looks neat. Have you listened to it. I asked you about it a few months back and you had not.

CT

still haven't but in light of our cirrent discussions I'm ordering it tomorrow.

Get the mp3 version: http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=423&1=424&2=-1

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

I am a theonomic, postmillenial, theoretical anti-realist (Calvinism is implied)

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata
CT,

that was funny, in a good way. Not mocking you just thought some of the stuff was funny.

I think you should check out anti-realism since you could be: rational non-realism (with the sub-categories of: pragmatism, operationism, phenomenalism), or a non-rational non-realist.

As far as your two-three witness argument. I (seriously) don't know if you're half-way pulling my leg? The verses were not meant to be used in the fashion you just did. How bout this: scientific realism is true because 10 out of 12 scientists testify to it? You can critique their claims just as I did to your witnesses.

But they cannot observe scientific realism. It is a concept or theory. So how can they testify before the judges or whoever? They can say they believe in it, but that is not the same issue. You can critique my witnesses based on what they saw of me.

Next, you say that I am using the verses badly. So you have that witnesses can testify that I am the man who murdered the sailor with a knife on 44th street or committed adultery with Mrs. Jones but they cant testify that I am simply a man?

CT

not observing scientific realism. They observe that their theories are true and rational, we *call this* realism. You'll disagree. That's not the point. I just justified realism. If I can't do it using that which you do, then I sense a case of special pleading.

You cant observe that a theory is true and rational. You can observe that a theory makes a prediction and that prediction was verified. That does not make the theory true. As myself and Rick have argued over and over again. The best that you can say is that your theory is very useful (or at least you think it is). You can make observations without having a clue about the the speed of gravity etc. You cannot justify a theory by scientists agreeing that they like it. It is not an observation. It is like having witnesses come forward to say that chocolate is the best flavor. That is not an observation.

I'm saying that the laws do not refer to "any time you have two or three witness, therefore the claim is established." Start applying this and see if it can get silly.

I am not saying that laws refer to such. I am just saying that a person can testify to what they actually saw. A car speeding down the street. Not to the truth of the theory as to why the car can go so fast. They could never testify to the truth of the theory anyway, they could just say that they have never seen a prediction of this theory fail. The observation is the car not the theory.

p.s. how do you know there are any witnesses? If observation can get you to external truth how can you deny rational realism.

Easy. I can observe that my tv is on, without having a the true theory as how it operates. Anti-realism attacks the theory. Again you have never said anything more about Kuhn and why you refer so much to his book, and he was a top theoretical anti-realist.

anyway, I admit that this discussion is tough. Although I do hold to a form of rational realism I must admit that there are very good arguments from the other side. My only beef with you is "knowing" anti-realism to be true?

Well there are two ways to go about things. I could say that I do not know that it is not true, but you could not justify saying that you have reached the truth due to the logical fallacy.

But I would say that a true theory of how God is really doing things would be part of the secret things of God. He did not revel it in general or special revelation. So to say that you have reached the truth, is to say that I got something that God did not reveal to me by my ingenuity.

Put another way, if we could get true theories about how God is actively maintaining his creation, would not that be equivalent to saying the Canon of God's Revelation is not closed?

CT

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Also, I'm taking Sudduth's advice. I'm gonna stop talking to Scripturalists until they give a descent answer to the analytic question about knowledge.

I hear you on the Scripturalists; will you stop talking to Cheungian's as well? I hope you realize Cheungian's and Scripturalist's are not the same.

I really dig Sudduth. Do you have any idea why he pulled his articles on Clark? (He had two really good ones on his site.) Best I can figure is:
1) Robbins refuted all his arguments and Sudduth, embarassed by this, pulled them from his website. Robbins, humbly, did not gloat over his victory.
2) Robbins threatened to sue him if he didn't pull them from Sudduth's website. Sudduth complied. (I think Robbins actually did this when Sudduth tried to start a Clark discussion group.)
3) <Insert your tertium quid here>

To be honest, I know you love Clark, Robbins, Beisner et al. You just refuse to listen to anything.

Paul, I've left Thomism for Presuppositionalism because of your influence. But I have trouble with Van Til, because I have trouble with his reformulations of Reformed theology - especially that of his disciples - and also with his appeal to paradox (which you, thankfully, in the many dialogues that I've seen you participate in, do not appeal to.)

Here's a quote from John Frame:

"Unoriginal as his doctrinal formulations may be, his use of those formulations -- his application of them -- is often quite remarkable. ... Sometimes these new understandings are of quite a radical sort -- radical enough to require new formulations, or at least supplementary formulations, of the doctrines themselves. Van Til...rarely provides such revised formulations, though he does at some significant points.... But there is much in Van Til that will require future orthodox Reformed dogmaticians to rethink much of the traditional language and thus to go beyond Van Til himself. Not that the traditional language is wrong (generally speaking)[!!!!! How 'general' are we talking here Dr. Frame?!?!?RR]; it is just that through reading Van Til we often become painfully aware of how much more needs to be said. [Emphasis added.RR]

Beisner has very clearly shown the influence that Van Til had and has on the Auburn Avenue crowd. You **seem** to me, **at times**, to hesitate to reject Norman Shepherd's reformulation of justification. You have pointed out that Michael Butler has come to Norman Shepherd's defense (as did Greg Bahnsen.)

Now I realize that this is irrelevant to the current discussion. But I want to show you what has prevented *me* from accepting presuppositionalism as expressed by Cornelius Van Til.

As for Clark, I've never really understood him until I read Cheung. (Cheung is not a Clarkian, although they do have some similarities.)

It's almost getting to the point that it is between JohnV and I (regarding apologetics/philosophy), I just refuse to discuss it with some people anymore.

Hey! JohnV is the man - leave him out of this. :bigsmile: Seriously, though, I have alot of respect for JohnV - I wish I was half as smart and even 1/4th as charitable as he is.

That's not to say I don't love you guys but after so long I must consider it casting pearls before swine (and you know the gist of that statement, right? Not calling you swine).

Oink.

Seriously, I love you dearly as a brother in the Lord too. I try to keep you and your son in my prayers as often as I think about it. I also wish to publicly thank you for your willingness to take on Derek Sansone while most of us lurked in the background. (He thinks he can take on Cheung again 'cuz he's reading his Systematic Theology?? HAH! Doesn't he learn anything by induction? 1 out of 1 times - ie 100% of the time - that he's engaged Vincent Cheung, he's been slapped silly. His comment "I got bored with Cheung" is like saying "I got tired of beating his fist with my face.") Sorry, I digress.

As for your post, RR: it is unintelligible to me until you can define knowledge. Until you do that I don;t know what you mean by saying "science can't give you knowledge."

When I figure it out, I'll let you know!

[Edited on 25-11-2004 by RickyReformed]

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Science doesn't *only* deal with theories. It tests and repeats. I makes general laws, i.e., water freezes at 32 degrees. You said you agreed, so science gave us knowledge.

Paul, are you saying water **always** freezes at 32deg? How would we even determine that? Couldn't we at best say, every selection of water whose temperature was taken to 32deg has frozen? Since the Bible never says "water freezes at 32 degrees F (or 0 Celsius, etc.)", I would guess you would say that the Bible speaks of the "uniformity of nature" to prove this, right? How would you then respond to an Old Earth creationists who appeals to the uniformity of nature to determine that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years? As a former Old Earth Arminian (like Hugh Ross, see: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/younguniverse.shtml ), it was by an appeal to science and the uniformity of nature that I defended my beliefs back then. The Bible says the earth was created in the space of six days; what do we do with the uniformity of nature then?

Regarding water freezing, someone could rebutt, "well show me an example of water *not* freezing at 32 F. and I'll agree with your skepticism." That was essentially RC Sproul's answer when someone questioned his use of the law of causality to defend his cosmological argument: "Mea Culpa. Just show me an uncaused effect and I will recant" (paraphrase)

The "water freezing" example reminded me of this selection:

In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true. As cited above, the statement of Karl Popper is correct: "It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero."

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Ricky,

I appreciated your kind post.

I take acception to this.

Beisner has very clearly shown the influence that Van Til had and has on the Auburn Avenue crowd. You **seem** to me, **at times**, to hesitate to reject Norman Shepherd's reformulation of justification. You have pointed out that Michael Butler has come to Norman Shepherd's defense (as did Greg Bahnsen.)

I have never said this and I would like to see a quote. As far as Shepherd, I do not think his formulation is correct. I do hesitate to call him a heretic since the holy catholic church militant has not decreed him as such. I want to have respect for this method as I see presbyterianism as the most Biblical mdel for church government. Lastly, I addressed Beisner a while ago in the apologetcs thread, just in case someone brought this up one day. I have that book and he doesn't even cite Van Til but rather Robbins vitriolic "book:" Van Til: the man the myth. I do support pardox in Scripture. I don't find it necessary to bring it up in most discussions.

p.s. Sudduth clearly refuted Clark. he also sent me his latest paper on Scripturalism. He also sent it to Robbins. Technically, if you want to deal with people having a pathetic aplogetic/epistemology then look no further than Robbins. He admitted to Sudduth that he couldn't prove he was a man.

And I do realize Cheung is not Clark. I think he is Clarkian but realized he needed to save Scripturalism from the embarrassing defects. As it stands now I think his approach is totaly ad hoc. I find the answer to the querey: How do you know?: Becuase God conveyed it to me. Extremely naive.

Are you referring to the hesitation or to what I said that you said re: Michael Butler and Greg Bahnsen defending Shepherd?

Do you think you could send me a copy of Sudduth paper? I printed copies of the articles he used to have on his website, but I haven't been able to find them. By the way, you mentioned his upcoming book on natural theology. It's titled "The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology" (I think.) He has a Yahoo group called "Suduth Book Symposium" where he is releasing chapters from his book for people to read and comment. u2u me if you want a link.

Your right about Beisner citing Robbins and not Van Til. Let me restate what I meant:

Some people (Steve Schlissel and Andrew Sandlin come to mind) have **misunderstood** Van Til's position on logic; and because of this misunderstanding, accuse people who try to be logical as rationalists who drink from Athenian and Aristotelian wells. Beisner, in his intro to the Knox Colloquium, shows how the A4's statements are illogical. Do you disagree with this?

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
As for as Sproul, he's not to presuppose creation and so the idea that all effects have a cause begs the question. I wouldn't grant that as an atheist.

I think I missed your point; "All effects have a cause" is tautalogical. Are you saying that Sproul has not shown that universe is an effect?

Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true.

Originally posted by Paul manata
All? How could one know?

Not by induction, that's for sure!

[Edited on 25-11-2004 by RickyReformed]

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I'm referring to both. I answerd why I hesitate. I denied saying butler and Bahnsen defended him.

I'll ask Michael if he wouldn't mind.

I don't know (re: Schlissel et al). Not saying they're right but I think you have a simplistic view of things. Alot of this discussion (that we're having, for example) is a lot heavier than you are letting on.

You seem to be hesitating regarding Schissel, etc.; I think Beisner did a very good job of showing where there argument broke down into contradictions. The simplest explanation isn't necessarily the wrong explanation.

Regarding Bahnsen, I thought you had provided this link but maybe you didn't:

from http://www.cmfnow.com/AAPC/controversy.html
Greg L. Bahnsen
There is both objective evidence and supportive evidence for Bahnsen's support of Norman Shepherd and his views. The following is from a chapter I wrote in the recently published book, The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen, "Covenantal Antithesis."

Bahnsen agrees with Calvin's conclusion (i.e., Paul says that one is justified apart from the help of works, while James does not want to account someone as righteous who does not do good works and demands that believers be fruitful in good works). However, Bahnsen disagrees with the way in which Calvin arrives at that conclusion. Lecturing on this section of the Institutes, Bahnsen, in agreement with Norman Shepherd, says:

I think [this] is rather convoluted"¦ Let me very briefly point out, some people will say James can't mean the word justify in a forensic sense, because then he would contradict Paul. Paul says we are justified by faith, not works. James says we are justified by works. So if they both mean 'justify' in the forensic sense, there is a contradiction. Well, I don't think so, because in Galatians 5:6 Paul teaches exactly what James does. Paul says we are justified by faith working by love. We are justified by working, active, living faith. I think that's what James is teaching. They mean exactly the same thing. But nevertheless some people have insisted-and this has been a bone of controversy in my denomination even, because a professor at Westminster Seminary insisted James means this in the forensic sense.

Now"¦ people who don't like that say, It is to be taken in the demonstrative sense. The problem is, the demonstrative sense of the word justify means "to show someone to be righteous," and that doesn't relieve the contradiction between James and Paul, because Paul in Romans 4 looks at Abraham as an example of how God justifies the ungodly. James is saying, Look at how God justifies someone demonstrated as godly. The contradiction is not relieved. And so what you really get--and this is crucial, this is a crucial point--modern interpreters who don't like what I am suggesting and what Professor Shepherd is suggesting end up saying that to justify in James 2 really means "to demonstrate justification," not to "demonstrate righteousness." That is, they make the word to justify mean "to justify the fact that I'm justified." And the word never means that. That's utterly contrived. It means either "to declare righteous" or "to demonstrate righteous." It does not mean "to justify that one's justified."

"¦Am I making myself clear? I'm suggesting that the reason Paul and James are not contrary to one another is because the only kind of faith that will justify us is working faith, and the only kind of justification ever presented in the Bible after the Fall is a justification by working faith, a faith that receives its merit from God and proceeds to work as a regenerated, new person.13

Moreover, while lecturing on Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bahnsen responds to questions from a student regarding the competency level at some seminaries. After complimenting the seminaries for some good work, he is also critical of how other situations have been handled. When specifically asked about the caliber of 20th century instructors, Bahnsen replies that overall "the caliber has not been there." After commenting on another example, Bahnsen observes,

But then again John Murray retires at Westminster and you have a man who was very competent who took his place and because he was so competent and wrote in a way that didn't favor mass, well the opinion of many in positions of influence, he was moved out of his position. So, you have both things. The political as well as the lack of proficiency. No no, Norman Shepherd took his place.14

Note that this endorsement of Norman Shepherd's competence came well after Shepherd had been removed from WTS. Instead of condemning Shepherd as dangerous, erroneous or heretical, Bahnsen sees his dismissal from WTS as the loss of a "very competent" man.

As the AAPC controversy became more public, I inquired of Roger Wagner15 as to what he knew of Bahnsen's views of Shepherd. This was his reply:

Randy,
Greg and I both had Shepherd for the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in seminary and were very, very appreciative of his teaching (as well as his preaching in chapel and elsewhere from time to time). His work on the covenant and justification were not as developed (or public) at that time, but in later years (after the controversy erupted) when Greg and I talked about "Shepherd's position" on these matters, he was always very favorable to Shepherd's concerns and formulations (while perhaps none of us would endorse every jot and tittle of his published writings).

He thought, as do I, that Shepherd's critics either don't understand Shepherd's covenantal interests and concerns or don't want to (as is often the case with the critics of Van Til and Bahnsen as well). I'm not sure if it was Shepherd who pointed us to Fuller's book on law and gospel, but Greg also appreciated that discussion because it wrestles in a more sophisticated way with the question of the relation between redemption and ethics in the covenant (old and new). I think you said (somewhere) that Greg told you he agreed with Fuller's interpretation of some texts over his own after reading Fuller's book"¦.16

I'm absolutely sure if Greg were still with us, he'd be squarely on the "Shepherd side" of this issue (if I may use that shorthand in a "non-partisan" sense), and trying to get Joe M. and others of his opinion to erase the "line in the sand" they've drawn among the confessionally Reformed Reconstructionists.

I think the covenant theology formulated by Shepherd, Schlissel, Wright, and others is not only biblical, but also our strongest bastion against the growing "Lutheranism" and antinomianism in Reformed circles. We should think it through and fine-tune it as necessary, but to reject it out of hand is suicidal.

Hope that helps,
Roger

Further supporting evidence for Bahnsen's support of Shepherd and his views comes from David Bahnsen (Dr. Bahnsen's son), who has recently written:

All characterizing of Norm Shepherd's teachings aside, it was my own father who publicly and privately embraced such a Biblical reality. Even apart from his personal comments to me throughout my life about Professor Shepherd being one of his all-time favorite seminary instructors, his own sermons and writings uphold the very same need for an obedient salvation, and a living faith. If some have left the Auburn Avenue conference saying, "those men are really getting carried away with the human response part of the covenant," I feel I can confidently declare that my father would NOT have been one of them. On the contrary, their choice of emphases and their desire for paradigm shift is the crying need of the hour, in today's culture and today's church.17