Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
This is on page 117, footnote 88:
The sentence to which the footnote is linked is this one, in which Van Til is speaking: "To be sure, if Warfield's appeal to the natural man were of an ad hominem nature, then it would be well."
And this is the footnote, in which Bahnsen is speaking: "In the context, Van Til has been criticizing Warfield's notion that the Christian faith does not rest upon the foundation of the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Rather, said Warfield, as apologists we simply appeal to the books of the Bible as historical records--and then challenge the natural man to explain the claim to inspiration within these records written by sober men. Evidentialist critics of Van Til often overlook the fact that Van Til sees some use in that kind of challenge. However, it is ad hominem (exposing the man's inconsistency of character or practice), rather than an independent proof of what is claimed."
I was trying to understand exactly what Bahnsen and Van Til are meaning here.
Clearly, Van Til is saying that one argument for inspiration is unwarranted, in which an apologist autonomously attempts to prove Biblical inspiration by pointing to the facts that (e.g.) it is written by men who were separated by millennia and by continents yet is coherent; it represents a sin-hating, holy God Whom no man would devise; etc. For in that type of situation, the apologist making the argument would be assuming that philosophical autonomy is legitimate and Biblical inspiration must be proved "on top" of the unbelieving framework.
How would Van Til use the argument, then? I am guessing, but I am not positive, that he would use it in such a way as to show an inconsistency within the approach of the unbeliever rather than as a positive proof of Christianity. E.g., Van Til could tell a higher critic that the higher critic is mistakenly treating the Bible as a historical record when his methodology does not warrant it -- for the text contains things that would point away from its being a mere historical record (i.e., that a sin-hating God is portrayed in it, and that several authors wrote a coherent theology, would not give warrant for the critic to treat the Bible as a mere historical record).
But this seems a bit odd, for it's not really different in substance from the first "constructive" use of the argument. The first one (Warfield's method) lays down premises that the unbeliever would accept and then attempts to draw a conclusion (falsely, in my opinion) that the Bible is authoritative. The second one (Van Til's method) lays down premises that the unbeliever would accept and then attempts to draw a conclusion that the unbeliever is treating the Bible in the wrong way. But what does Van Til mean when he says that the unbeliever is treating the Bible in the wrong way? He means that the unbeliever ought to, given the evidence, treat the Bible as not a mere document, but as a divinely authored one! In that case, then, Van Til and Warfield both have the exact same conclusions, and therefore the exact same methodologies, at least in regards to this argument about inspiration.
Is there any difference between Warfield and Van Til here? It seems that Van Til and Bahnsen may be trying to salvage an evidentialist argument when there is not one to salvage.
Perhaps someone wiser than I could point out what Van Til and Bahnsen mean by the ad hominem utilization of Warfield's argument...
The sentence to which the footnote is linked is this one, in which Van Til is speaking: "To be sure, if Warfield's appeal to the natural man were of an ad hominem nature, then it would be well."
And this is the footnote, in which Bahnsen is speaking: "In the context, Van Til has been criticizing Warfield's notion that the Christian faith does not rest upon the foundation of the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Rather, said Warfield, as apologists we simply appeal to the books of the Bible as historical records--and then challenge the natural man to explain the claim to inspiration within these records written by sober men. Evidentialist critics of Van Til often overlook the fact that Van Til sees some use in that kind of challenge. However, it is ad hominem (exposing the man's inconsistency of character or practice), rather than an independent proof of what is claimed."
I was trying to understand exactly what Bahnsen and Van Til are meaning here.
Clearly, Van Til is saying that one argument for inspiration is unwarranted, in which an apologist autonomously attempts to prove Biblical inspiration by pointing to the facts that (e.g.) it is written by men who were separated by millennia and by continents yet is coherent; it represents a sin-hating, holy God Whom no man would devise; etc. For in that type of situation, the apologist making the argument would be assuming that philosophical autonomy is legitimate and Biblical inspiration must be proved "on top" of the unbelieving framework.
How would Van Til use the argument, then? I am guessing, but I am not positive, that he would use it in such a way as to show an inconsistency within the approach of the unbeliever rather than as a positive proof of Christianity. E.g., Van Til could tell a higher critic that the higher critic is mistakenly treating the Bible as a historical record when his methodology does not warrant it -- for the text contains things that would point away from its being a mere historical record (i.e., that a sin-hating God is portrayed in it, and that several authors wrote a coherent theology, would not give warrant for the critic to treat the Bible as a mere historical record).
But this seems a bit odd, for it's not really different in substance from the first "constructive" use of the argument. The first one (Warfield's method) lays down premises that the unbeliever would accept and then attempts to draw a conclusion (falsely, in my opinion) that the Bible is authoritative. The second one (Van Til's method) lays down premises that the unbeliever would accept and then attempts to draw a conclusion that the unbeliever is treating the Bible in the wrong way. But what does Van Til mean when he says that the unbeliever is treating the Bible in the wrong way? He means that the unbeliever ought to, given the evidence, treat the Bible as not a mere document, but as a divinely authored one! In that case, then, Van Til and Warfield both have the exact same conclusions, and therefore the exact same methodologies, at least in regards to this argument about inspiration.
Is there any difference between Warfield and Van Til here? It seems that Van Til and Bahnsen may be trying to salvage an evidentialist argument when there is not one to salvage.
Perhaps someone wiser than I could point out what Van Til and Bahnsen mean by the ad hominem utilization of Warfield's argument...