Calling all Van Tillians!

Status
Not open for further replies.

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
Brothers,

Need some help with this question that keeps popping up in my mind as I read Chapter 8 of my beloved Confession (WCF). As a "soft" Clarkian I have the answer, but I'm interested in the Van Tillian response just to help out my polemic understanding of epistemology. Here goes.....

If Van Til insists that there is a creator/creature distinction so that man cannot think the same way God does at any point, then how could Christ be of two distinct NATURES and one PERSON? In the PERSON of Christ (where creature and creator meet), why is this not the intersection between God\'s thoughts and our own?

"Person" requires thinking (and more, I know). But because both natures meet in one PERSON "without conversion, composition, or confusion", this would necessitate an intersection of Divine and human, else there would be two persons instead of one.

Not picking a fight. I really want to know the Van Til mind on this one. And be gentle. I'm a pastor, not a philosopher
:pray2::D

Kind regards,

Jerrold H. Lewis

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by JOwen]
 
Paradox?:lol:

Sorry for not answering directly but many on this board that have followed Van Tillian threads will appreciate the sick humor.
 
Would not the distinction be that a sinful person is unable to think the same way that God does at any point?
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Would not the distinction be that a sinful person is unable to think the same way that God does at any point?

I believe Van Til makes the analogical claim, not on the noetic effect of sin but on the creator/creature distinction. God is "wholly other" and therefore our knowledge and God's cannot be the same.

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis
 
Originally posted by JOwen
I believe Van Til makes the analogical claim, not on the noetic effect of sin but on the creator/creature distinction. God is "wholly other" and

I believe this quote from Paul Manata will be helpful:

I would say the main issue in the clark-van til controversy was over the difference between our thoughts and God's thoughts. Clark held a quantatative difference (i.e., God knows more than us) and Van Til held both a quantatative as well as qualatative difference.

So, Van Til charged Clark with denying the creator/creature distinction and Clark, based of his misunderstanding of Van Til's use of the term "analogy" (which was, I admit, partly the fault of some of the Van Tilians for not being clear) charged Van Til with being an irrationalist, leading to the conclusion that we can't know God but only an analogy of God.

The debate was, I think, mostly defintional. For when one formulates it the way I will below both sides shouldn't have a problem:

There are different ways to use the verb "to know." There is: knowing that, knowing as, knowing how, knowing who, etc. Then one can talk about two people knowing the same when they use the same criteria, or standard of knowledge. So, knowing "that" would be refering to the object of knowledge. In this sense both God and man have the "same knowledge" though God would know more facts about, say, a rose growing in the garden. Or, take the criteria of knowledge. For man and God it is both the same, i.e., mainly God's mind. But take knowing "as." In this sense our knowledge is not the same since God know "as" creator and man knows "as" creature. In this sense there would be a qualatative difference betwen God's and man's thoughts and mind. (quote from PB 1/17/2005)

[Edited on 4-30-2005 by BrianLanier]
 
Originally posted by BrianLanier
Originally posted by JOwen
I believe Van Til makes the analogical claim, not on the noetic effect of sin but on the creator/creature distinction. God is "wholly other" and

I believe this quote from Paul Manata will be helpful:

I would say the main issue in the clark-van til controversy was over the difference between our thoughts and God's thoughts. Clark held a quantatative difference (i.e., God knows more than us) and Van Til held both a quantatative as well as qualatative difference.

So, Van Til charged Clark with denying the creator/creature distinction and Clark, based of his misunderstanding of Van Til's use of the term "analogy" (which was, I admit, partly the fault of some of the Van Tilians for not being clear) charged Van Til with being an irrationalist, leading to the conclusion that we can't know God but only an analogy of God.

The debate was, I think, mostly defintional. For when one formulates it the way I will below both sides shouldn't have a problem:

There are different ways to use the verb "to know." There is: knowing that, knowing as, knowing how, knowing who, etc. Then one can talk about two people knowing the same when they use the same criteria, or standard of knowledge. So, knowing "that" would be refering to the object of knowledge. In this sense both God and man have the "same knowledge" though God would know more facts about, say, a rose growing in the garden. Or, take the criteria of knowledge. For man and God it is both the same, i.e., mainly God's mind. But take knowing "as." In this sense our knowledge is not the same since God know "as" creator and man knows "as" creature. In this sense there would be a qualatative difference betwen God's and man's thoughts and mind. (quote from PB 1/17/2005)

[Edited on 4-30-2005 by BrianLanier]


Brother,

Thanks for the interesting quote. It does not answer my question however.

Still looking for the Van Til vantage point on this question.

Kind regads,
Jerrold
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
JOwen attributes to Van Til this claim:


If Van Til insists that there is a creator/creature distinction so that man cannot think the same way God does at any point

But this is mistaken. Technically, Van Til said that the knowledge coincides at no point. Secondly, if this is what you thought, what Brian Lanier wrote was correct since you cannot think as a Creator (just like you can't think as I think since we're not the same thinker).

I can think as you think brother, that is, humanly according to our nature. And this is the point: Christ in his single PERSON was two in nature (divine/human). This would necessitate a coinciding of human thought and divine thought else thre would be TWO persons not one. Do you see what I am getting at? If Christ in his single PERSON was not one in thought with God (albeit limited according to the flesh), then how could there be a singularity in person at all? It would dichotomize Christ into 2 persons.

Third, and I know you're a "soft" Clarkian, so I won't hold it against you that you've bought into the lies spread by John Robbins (especially in VT: The Man The Myth), but here's is the relevant quote by Van Til (with my emphasis added):

Brother, I find this type of post less than helpful. My soft Clarkianism was derived from an Augustinian/Nash/Ckark/Reymond/William Young vein. There are moderate, less hostile sources for the presupositional position of Clark than Robbins. Perhaps it is best to keep the surmising to yourself as it has the potential to inflame rather than edify.


"In the first place, it is possible in this way to see that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man coincide at every point in the sense that always and everywhere man confronts that which is already fully known or interpreted by God. The point of reference cannot but be the same for man as for God. There is no fact that man meets in any of his investigation where the face of God does not confront him. On the other hand in this way it is possible to see that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man coincide at no point in the sense that in his awareness of meaning of anything, in his mental grasp or understanding of anything, man is at each point dependent upon a prior act of unchangeable understanding and revelation on the part of God. The form of the revelation of God to man must come to man in accordance with his creaturely limitations."
(An Introduction to Systematic Theology, pp. 164-65)


Three points:

1) The use of the phrase "in the sense that" introduces a qualification and distinction, and therefore it is only in a qualified sense that man's knowledge does and does not coincide at every point (the use of a qualifier heads off the charge of contradiction, obviously).

2) Van Til begins by saying that they do coincide and in this sense we do know things because God knows truth, this is basically referring to Van Til's phrase, "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

3) Note that this distinction concerns us not with the content of man's knowledge but with the character of it. Man is "dependent upon prior revelation from God." And as Jesus, the God-man(!) said, man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Jehovah.


The phrase In the sense that (and its explanation) does not alleviate the problem of Van Til's creature/creator distinction that, as far as I can tell, is the rubbing point between the two epistemological views. I go back to my point. If human thought does not coincide with divine at any single point, how could the hypo-static union of Christ's two natures be found in one person?

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis
 
Originally posted by Paul manata

VT wrote: "his awareness of meaning of anything, in his mental grasp or understanding of anything, man is at each point dependent upon a prior act of unchangeable understanding and revelation on the part of God."

So, when Jesus knew things according to his human nature His knowledge depended upon God's knowledge.

Also, note that Van Til is referring to fallen humans and our epistemology, so don't make him say more than he is saying.

But if man's knowlege is dependant on God's knowlege (and I believe it is), and man's knowlege is only anological (not univocal), then how can there be a meeting of two natures in one person in Christ? Christ did not have two different thoughts on knowlege or he would not have been one in PERSON. Are you saying that Jesus Christ, even now in heaven only understands truth (according to his human nature) anologically? As He is now in heaven, are His "person thoughts" anological or univocal?

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis
 
Originally posted by Paul manata

I saw this thread and saw that first, van Til was misquoted and second that you were not getting the answers you wanted, so I thought I would add my two-cents. I really don't post here and I can't get into an extended debate. Furthermore, I really don't discuss things with Clarkians anymore since I haven't seen anyone of them define "knowledge" so that I even know what they mean by saying X can't know something by his senses, or X's knowledge coincides at no point is heretical. Having said that I'll try and point out what I see as the problems and maybe we can have one more back and forth.

I appreciate your time.


1) There are plenty of things we don't understand about the hypostatic union, it is called a high and holy mystery. I wouldn't put my eggs all in this basket, then.

I agree with you about the mystery of the hypostatic union. Having said that, my question does not come from placing all my eggs in one basket, but from the doctrine of "Christ the Mediator" in the WCF. The statement is clear that there are two natures in one person. If the human nature is expressed in the PERSON of Christ then so is the divine. And if the divine is expressed then there must be a one-to-one correlation between the knowledge of God and man or Christ would be two persons.

2) Are you implying that all knowledge claims attributed to Jesus are to be attributed to the one person and thus attributed to both natures?

If I understand this question correctly then I believe the answer is yes to all "knowledge claims attributed to Jesus are to be attributed to the one person", and no to "thus attributed to both natures". The nature does not think or know, only the person thinks and knows.

3) What does Van Til mean by analogy?

He seems to mean several things. Not the least of which is a non-coinciding knowledge.


4) What did Jesus mean by saying that He lived not by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God and how is it different than this claim: "his awareness of meaning of anything, in his mental grasp or understanding of anything, man is at each point dependent upon a prior act of unchangeable understanding and revelation on the part of God?"
Not sure there is a difference with one exception: what kind of knowledge was it? Analogical or univocal.

I'd still like an answer to this question please:
Are you saying that Jesus Christ, even now in heaven only understands truth (according to his human nature) analogically? As He is now in heaven, are His "person thoughts" analogical or univocal to God's?

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top