Thread: A Nod to WSC and Dr. Clark

This last Saturday was the final meeting of my "Advanced Seminar on Philosophy and Cosmology" class at Biola. During class, I asked some questions that revealed some doubts I have about Intelligent Design (not the fact that the universe was designed, but more about the "neutral" approach ID takes to the Designer - "It" could be the God of the Bible, or Allah, or Vishnu, or some alien who designed life on this planet. ID is agnostic when it comes to the Designer.)

Anyway, after class some of the students wanted to talk to me more about my questions, and I ended up staying for at least an hour discussing what I view as major problems with ID (namely: that it is not based on the presupposition of the truth of Scripture). We were going back and forth when one of the students quoted the Belgic Confession! Needless to say, I wasn't expecting this from a Biola student! Well, it turns out that this man is also a student at Westminster, and is in Dr. Clark's Medieval-Reformation course. He was also able to correctly diagnose my Van Tillian presuppositional approach to ID.

So, I post this to make you all aware of the good work that WSC and Dr. Clark are doing! Dr. Clark, your students are applying the things you are teaching outside of the classroom. Give this man some extra credit!

Originally Posted by sastark

This last Saturday was the final meeting of my "Advanced Seminar on Philosophy and Cosmology" class at Biola. During class, I asked some questions that revealed some doubts I have about Intelligent Design (not the fact that the universe was designed, but more about the "neutral" approach ID takes to the Designer - "It" could be the God of the Bible, or Allah, or Vishnu, or some alien who designed life on this planet. ID is agnostic when it comes to the Designer.)

Anyway, after class some of the students wanted to talk to me more about my questions, and I ended up staying for at least an hour discussing what I view as major problems with ID (namely: that it is not based on the presupposition of the truth of Scripture). We were going back and forth when one of the students quoted the Belgic Confession! Needless to say, I wasn't expecting this from a Biola student! Well, it turns out that this man is also a student at Westminster, and is in Dr. Clark's Medieval-Reformation course. He was also able to correctly diagnose my Van Tillian presuppositional approach to ID.

So, I post this to make you all aware of the good work that WSC and Dr. Clark are doing! Dr. Clark, your students are applying the things you are teaching outside of the classroom. Give this man some extra credit!

Good points Seth. You are spot on. ID is "neutral" but I think it does so due to that "wedge" mentality they have of getting that foot in the door. I totally agree with your statement and obviously the Belgic Confession is on the $$ ( And Props to Dr. Clark as well ):

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XIV
The Creation and Fall of Man, and His Incapacity to Perform What Is Truly Good

We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after His own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God. But being in honor, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but wilfully subjected himself to sin and consequently to death and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. For the commandment of life, which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life; having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death. And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he has lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God, and retained only small remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness, as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not; where St. John calls men darkness.
Therefore we reject all that is taught repugnant to this concerning the free will of man, since man is but a slave to sin, and can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven. For who may presume to boast that he of himself can do any good, since Christ says: No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him? Who will glory in his own will, who understands that the mind of the flesh is enmity against God? Who can speak of his knowledge, since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God? In short, who dares suggest any thought, since he knows that we are not sufficient of ourselves to account anything as of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God? And therefore what the apostle says ought justly to be held sure and firm, that God worketh in us both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. For there is no understanding nor will conformable to the divine understanding and will but what Christ has wrought in man; which He teaches us, when He says: Apart from me ye can do nothing.

Amen to that. Also it is worth noting there is a good discussion going on at my blog concerning Dr. Clark's blog post on Instruments in Worship.

Thanks, Seth. Wow, that was amazing you had students that were interested in a Reformed view of design. I graduated from a Reformed seminary where the evidentialist view was the approach that was taught and it was assumed you held this approach. I was never comfortable with it and held to the presuppositional position before I came to seminary. I was thankful for my systematic theology professor who turned me on to Gordon Clark.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Thanks, Seth. Wow, that was amazing you had students that were interested in a Reformed view of design.

I did get at least one "Well, if that's the case, why don't we all become creation scientists" responses. I just stared blankly (thinking to myself "duh!").

I graduated from a Reformed seminary where the evidentialist view was the approach that was taught and it was assumed you held this approach. I was never comfortable with it and held to the presuppositional position before I came to seminary. I was thankful for my systematic theology professor who turned me on to Gordon Clark.

I considered myself presuppositional before coming to Biola. After being to a couple of debates between atheists and evidential apologists, I have become solidified in my belief that the evidentialist apologetic is unable to shut the mouth of the unbeliever to the same degree as the presuppositional apologetic. Evidence has it's place, don't get me wrong, but I've decided that I will not attend any more debates unless a presuppositional apologist is included.

I have been surprised by the extent to which presuppositionalism has spread among the general evangelical population (using the Biola grad students I've encountered as a sample population).

By the way Seth glad to see you are an ARP.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

By the way Seth glad to see you are an ARP.

My wife and I just stumbled across the only English-speaking ARP in California (the others are Korean churches) a couple of months ago. What a wonderful group of Christians! We couldn't be happier.

Edited to add: We are attending, but haven't joined, yet, though that is our eventual intent.

Technically then we'll be in the same Presbytery...

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Technically then we'll be in the same Presbytery...

Yes, I've heard of the strange presbyterial boundaries in the ARP. If you've been to any presbytery meetings, you may have met the Pastor: Kent Moorlach.

He was not at my first Presbytery meeting in March and I'll miss the one at Bonclarken so one day I'll meet him, hopefully in October.

Honestly, I think J.P. Moreland is like a lot of prominent "Evangelicals" who know a lot of about philosophical arguments from a natural theological framework but have no affinity for Evangelical theology that might critique some of their basic pre-sups.

Who was that Evangelical that just went Roman Catholic? His statements after the fact reveal a man that had never really even understood Protestant distinctives 101.

I am very concerned about the direction that mainstream Evangelicalism is going. It's not that the people within it are becoming as Pelagian as the Roman Catholics but that they are becoming more so in terms of the necessity of grace.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Honestly, I think J.P. Moreland is like a lot of prominent "Evangelicals" who know a lot of about philosophical arguments from a natural theological framework but have no affinity for Evangelical theology that might critique some of their basic pre-sups.

Who was that Evangelical that just went Roman Catholic? His statements after the fact reveal a man that had never really even understood Protestant distinctives 101.

I am very concerned about the direction that mainstream Evangelicalism is going. It's not that the people within it are becoming as Pelagian as the Roman Catholics but that they are becoming more so in terms of the necessity of grace.

You are thinking of Francis Beckwith. I think he was a big promoter of ID as well.

Yeah, Beckwith never really left his RC beliefs behind it would seem.



Hooray for ARPs!

Originally Posted by Zenas

Yeah, Beckwith never really left his RC beliefs behind it would seem.



Hooray for ARPs!

Not quite off topic because J.P. Moreland is a big ID fan and "celebrity" at Biola. Some of the things he's said about reason vs. his faith point to a similar problem.