Hello Gentlemen,

I actually had a conversation with John Frame over this issue of "apparent contradiction." David, your concerns are right on. The Van Tillian position of apparent contradiction is simply this:

1. There are some things taught in Scripture that appear to be contradictory.
2. Although, in our own finitude or in our current epistemic state we may not be able to or ever be able to resolve such apparent contradictions, we believe that ultimately there is no contradiction.
3. As such, our own rationality is subject to God.

This is problematic for the Van Tillian apologetic method. He appeals to "apparent contradiction" upon an internal critique of his worldview. He will not allow such an appeal from the competing worldview. Now, the Van Tillian may argue that he has an ontological basis, i.e. God, upon which this appeal is rational. That is to say, he may say that within his worldview, where God's revelation is supreme even over our own rationality, "apparent contradictions" are allowed. However, the trouble with this is that the Van Tillian undermines his own hermenutical basis for such an appeal. Consider the issue of justification in the writings of James relative to Paul. If one accepts the concept of "apparent contradictions," then one can argue that the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith and by works and this seeming contradiction is only apparent and not actual. There would be no basis to deny this position if one allows "apprent contradictions."

Final Thoughts: The idea that there can be apparent contradictions based on my limitations seems right to me. I do not believe that there are actual contradictions, but I do believe that it is possible there may be some things I cannot reconcile due to my limitiations. There may be some things I may never be able to reconcile. So, in this sense I think Van Til is correct.

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei