Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
One may affirm apparent contradiction in the true sense, that things might appear contradictory but after further reflection it can be ascertained that no law of logic is being violated. Mysteries are often like that. They might appear contradictory on the surface but after further study one finds no contradiction.
Your excusing Van Til´s idea the contradictory nature of Scripture is impressive. I could perhaps sympathize with your embarrassment over his overt attack on the doctrine of Scripture, but sticking your head in the sand is hardly admirable.
Further your ignorance of history, even recent history, is shameful. Van Til and his disciples have, to this day, viciously attack anyone who would dare harmonize so-called paradoxes of Scripture which they have deemed impervious to "œhuman reason." While the prime example of these attacks were leveled against Clark for attempting to harmonize one of these Van Tilian "œapparent contradictions," spend some time observing Van Tilians debate the contradictions entailed in the so-called "œWell Meant Offer." So if you have any evidence you´d like to put forward where Bahnsen distanced himself from Van Til´s errant and paradoxical view of Scripture and analogous view of truth please provide some citations now.
Quote:
After citing an example of divine foreordination and human freedom, Bahnsen writes: In this and many other cases, human knowledge may have a paradoxical cast to it, then; we affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory. 233-234
Sean, do you really think this makes your case? Things "œmay" have a paradoxical cast to it is not to suggest that after further reflection Bahnsen did not embrace those "œapparent" contradictions as simply mysteries that he understood violated no law of non-contradiction.
LOL Bahnsen; "œwe affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory . . . ." You might, but I don´t. If truths appear contradictory then arguably one of these "œtruths" is not true at all for we know that one side of any contradiction must be, not may be, false. Since we´re talking about God´s Word I also would suspect that the problem lies with me and that I need to seek the Lord with all the more diligence in order to resolve these apparent contradictions in my own mind. OTOH, if the contradiction must stand as Van Tilians assert, then I think I would be justified in concluding the bible is false. Of course I would be attacked as a "rationalist" by Van Tilians for even suggesting such a thing. For them, piety is measured by the degree one is willing to commit intellectual suicide in the name of Christ. If I were a Van Tilian like Bahnsen, I would bow my head in pious submissionn to nonsense and affirm contradictory propositions. After all, this is what Bahnsen says we should do for it is the heart of the Van Tilian Creator/creature distinction.
Regardless, Bahnsen NOWHERE distances himself from what Van Til actually taught in that book or in anything I have read or heard from him. Instead of facing this sad fact you try and excuse him.
Van Til on the other hand said that God is one person and three persons, which is not merely an apparent contradiction that relieves itself on further reflection "“ it´s a true contradiction. Now where did Bahnsen affirm anything like that?
What do you mean he didn´t affirm anything like that? "œVan Til produced valuable studies in the area of Christian theology (e.g., on equal ultimacy in the Trinity . . . )." Now, I´ve read Bahnsen´s book, I´ve listened to tapes by him, I´ve read a number of his published articles, but nowhere have I ever read his repudiation of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture, the Trinity, biblical paradox, analogy . . . anything! So please show me where he rejects statements from VT like; "œOur knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical" and "œall teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory." Instead, it seems to me, he affirms this hallmark of Van Tilianism when he asserts "œwe affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory . . . ." He everywhere seems to be in complete agreement with VT when he said; "œWhile we shun as poison the idea of the really contradictory, we embrace with passion the idea of the apparently contradictory." Bahnsen shared his mentor´s passion.
That´s my point in separating Bahnsen from Van Til and even Frame. Bahnsen was too charitable to Van Til in my estimation.
We agree, then why all the disagreement? Given what you´ve said concerning VT´s unorthodox and contradictory doctrine of the Trinity, I have no idea why you´re being so charitable to Bahnsen who did NOTHING to combat these crippling errors in Van Til´s though. Instead, like the Van Tilian pit bull he was, he attacked Clark and Scripturalists as a "œrationalist" and anyone openly critical of his master.
For instance, in the footnote for that exact quote you referenced Bahnsen writes: "œVan Til went out of his way to make it clear that he was actually talking only about the appearance of contradiction to man "“ not that there is actually any logical contradiction."
Van Tilians have been making this lame excuse for years. However, my problem is; What is the difference between the "œreally contradictory" and the "œapparently contradictory"? and, Is there any method by which we can tell one class of contradictions from the other? If there is no such method, what are the meaning and purpose of asserting that all Scripture is "œapparently contradictory"? Does not such an assertion encourage laziness in Bible study, commend ignorance, and elevate clerics and academics, especially those of the Vantilian stripe, into a new priestly class who alone can peer into the Biblical stew of apparent contradictions, antinomies, tensions, analogies, and insoluble paradoxes and demand assent to their contradictory view of truth on the basis of nothing more than their own authority?
This is Bahnsen at his worst, no doubt. For Van Til argued that we must violate logic, which Bahnsen did not affirm. Bahnsen tried to interpret Van Til in a way that defied Van Til´s actual thought.
This is an extremely charitable reading of Bahnsen, but where is the proof? Where did he defy Van Til on any of these points? Where is Bahnsen´s critique of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture? Where is his critique of VT´s doctrine of the Trinity? Where is anything that supports your interpretation of Bahnsen? He always appeared to me to be a thorough going and devoted Vantilian. Admittedly his application and focus was quite a bit different from that of Frame, but, as I´ve pointed out, instead of distancing himself from Frame´s piece, "œVan Til the Theologian,"he commends it to his readers. I´m sorry Ron. While your remarks here give me a new appreciation for you, they have done nothing to alter my assessment of Bahnsen.