Cranmer19591959
Puritan Board Freshman
Gordon H. Clark said that God is Logic. John 1:1. Van Til, who approved of Thomism in regards to the archetypal and ectypal dichotomy, said that logic is created, not an attribute of the divine image.
Moral Argument and Presuppositionalism
- Thread starter Henoch
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Got back from Davenant. They said they weren't doing that.
As to "sufficient for determining truth," that's ambiguous. I do think human reason is sufficient, at least for knowledge as justified, true belief, to find out if 2 + 2 = 4. Of course, God is prior to that in the order of being, but that is something that classical guys have always maintained.
God always initiates by revealing, but we also believe that general revelation counts as revelation.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Even though I agree with the archetypal/ectypal distinction, as it is our heritage as Reformed folk, I do not follow Van Til in seeing logic as created.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
OK, God initiates by General revelation. Then unregenerate man suppresses. So we get nowhere and are back to square one.
Laborer for the Lord
Puritan Board Freshman
I actually think that train of thought does yield progress, if only in that the believer achieves a greater understanding of Paul's summary statement in Romans 1:19-20. The classical method of apologetics distinguishes between the ordo essendi and the ordo cognoscendi, true, but it likewise employs inferential reasoning from an effect to its cause, and regards the conclusions of such reasoning as valid. Hence, the unregenerate man knows that there is a God, because his intellectual powers are so fashioned as to apprehend His existence and certain attributes of His being by virtue of the things made, whether one classifies such an apprehension as 'intuitive' or 'deductive'.
The fact that Scripture declares and assumes such truths to be so should encourage us in evangelizing not with the goal of getting the unbeliever to capitulate to an apologetic argument, but to leave them without excuse as to his or her own inaction or indecision when presented with the gospel. It is the LORD, by His Spirit, who either draws to Himself or judicially hardens the hearer of His Word. The responsibility of the church is to proclaim the whole counsel of God and solemnly warn what befalls those who persist in unbelief. Whether or not one should engage a prospective convert in evidential discussions as to the veracity of the Bible or else to resolve philosophical obstacles to belief is a decision that ultimately depends on spiritual discernment. Some will legitimately be drawn to Christ and have questions that they seek answers to; others, by contrast, are swine to whom pearls of wisdom need not be cast. It is the Holy Spirit who equips us to distinguish between the two in these circumstances.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It is not clear why, on your gloss, the unregenerate man will not suppress the same laws of logic (which come from general revelation) when you present him with the TAG.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
I fully expect him to suppress it. It does however leave him without excuse. In that sense, his suppression will only "fill up the measure of his father's cup" and add to his damnation.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No doubt it will, but one then wonders what was the whole point of not only arguing with him, but talking with him anyway.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
The whole point is.....
Our duty is to answer for the hope in us. Apologetics is largely for the believer to understand how to think straight. Apologetics brings the believer to think about epistemology. It teaches him pedagogy and how to listen, cut through the smoke and keep things focused on the matter at hand, when dealing with unbelievers, believers and when giving counsel to his own soul. It demonstrates to him that he has indeed not believed cunningly devised fables but is now swimming in one grand harmonious truth about God and Creation.
Apologetics is not evangelism though it moves towards that end. Apologetics can shut the mouths of the unbeliever, though they continue to yammer away, they have been unmasked.
Evangelism, In my humble opinion, is always moral. Man is a transgressor against his Creator and in need of reconciliation. I wonder why we don't read further down to the end of Romans Ch 1 where we see that not only does man know God exists and his implicit duty to Him (v18-20) but man also knows he is guilty before Him and deserves judgment. Rom. 1:32 knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death...
John 3:36 puts it this way... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jesus puts it this way: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (Acts 26:14)
In our evangelism, the puritans taught that we must first do a "thorough Law work". We must bring them under conviction. We can only do that by the Holy Spirit. (John 16:8) And it is the Law which brings the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20, 7:7)
Only then can we call men to repent and be reconciled through Christ's redemption. No sin = no need of a Savior.
The whole point is.... duty is our, the results are in God's hands. Some believed and others believed not at Paul's Mars Hill testimony.... "whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others." (WCF 5:6)
Our duty is to answer for the hope in us. Apologetics is largely for the believer to understand how to think straight. Apologetics brings the believer to think about epistemology. It teaches him pedagogy and how to listen, cut through the smoke and keep things focused on the matter at hand, when dealing with unbelievers, believers and when giving counsel to his own soul. It demonstrates to him that he has indeed not believed cunningly devised fables but is now swimming in one grand harmonious truth about God and Creation.
Apologetics is not evangelism though it moves towards that end. Apologetics can shut the mouths of the unbeliever, though they continue to yammer away, they have been unmasked.
Evangelism, In my humble opinion, is always moral. Man is a transgressor against his Creator and in need of reconciliation. I wonder why we don't read further down to the end of Romans Ch 1 where we see that not only does man know God exists and his implicit duty to Him (v18-20) but man also knows he is guilty before Him and deserves judgment. Rom. 1:32 knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death...
John 3:36 puts it this way... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jesus puts it this way: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (Acts 26:14)
In our evangelism, the puritans taught that we must first do a "thorough Law work". We must bring them under conviction. We can only do that by the Holy Spirit. (John 16:8) And it is the Law which brings the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20, 7:7)
Only then can we call men to repent and be reconciled through Christ's redemption. No sin = no need of a Savior.
The whole point is.... duty is our, the results are in God's hands. Some believed and others believed not at Paul's Mars Hill testimony.... "whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others." (WCF 5:6)
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
Almost, RC Sproul does NOT fully agree. Tucked away in that paragraph is my comment on learning epistemology and in that we learn the structure of logic. And the structure is what I stated way before.
1. In any system you will have an ultimate authority.
2. That ultimate authority must, by definition, be self attesting.
3. Therefore any argument asserting/proving that authority must demonstrate that self attesting nature via an indirect and transcendental logical structure.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
1. That is why the historic Reformed faith made the distinction between the order of being (God) and the order of knowing.
2. True, but that does not always translate to persuasion, and in any case, Paul quoted pantheistic poets more than he formulated the TAG.
3. Very few (if any) apologists in Scripture did that.
2. True, but that does not always translate to persuasion, and in any case, Paul quoted pantheistic poets more than he formulated the TAG.
3. Very few (if any) apologists in Scripture did that.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
Is this your position?
______________________________________________________
Or is this your position?
RamistThomist:
We all agree with that.
_______________________________________________________
Are you bewildered as to "what is the point" or do you agree that the point is the faithful execution of our duty to engage/talk to unbelievers regardless of results? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The perceived contradiction arose because on your position I couldn't tell whether you actually wanted to talk to the unbeliever.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
What, in anything I wrote, would lead you to believe that?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
With your claim that he is just going to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Given that he is always going to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, why bother to even talk with him? He is just going to suppress the truth of the impossibility of the contrary as well.
Of course, I believe that he does suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but not in such a way that renders discussion impossible.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
It's the old "borrowed Capital" thing. They can't account for intelligibility but they use it everyday. As to suppressing the truth, I've answered that ... "fill up the measure of their father's cup". Make it even harder to kick against the pricks. Some unbelievers will even crack over time, acquiesce and surrender to Christ. Indeed, that is the testimony of most converted in their adult years.
This is our challenge to them...
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
I'm not destroying language or communication and neither does the above Proverb. But I am calling them to jettison their epistemological commitments, though they many not understand that language.
Grant Van Leuven
Puritan Board Freshman
For what it's worth to contribute to the conversation, in our church's membership class we note this:
WCF 1:4: The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.i
i2 Pet 1:19,21; 2 Tim 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess 2:13.
Apologetic method, presuppositionalism: Bible is true because it is God’s Word. AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. Self-authenticating authority. 2 Sam. 23:2, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 3:16. Also, “Thus saith the Lord”, “And the LORD said”, etc. As well the Church (as the RCC would boast) is not the source of authorizing the books of the Bible, but simply the testimony to them. Thomas Watson writes, “ … the church holds for the Scriptures [as the pillar and ground of the truth per 1 Tim. 3:15], but they do not receive their authority from the church, but from God.”
______
My concern in observing my own apologetic efforts over the years is that I'd often walk way realizing I barely quoted any Scripture for the person to hear God directly as I'd get caught up in answering all the evidential arguments which won't save but only the Holy Spirit by the Word. Later on when I adjusted I'd challenge comments mostly with Scripture, and one friend (who had been a good Christian influence on me in high school but now sadly denies the faith due to evolution) said, "Wow, I've never had any Christian interact with me this way." Though he wasn't convinced then (only the Spirit of Christ can open one's eyes) I'd lean heavily on Romans 1:18-20 and say "you know this is true, even though you are denying it and I'm speaking to your conscience of what you know is true because the Bible says so and I'm bringing you directly to the Lord to hear His testimony directly in His Word." Acts 17:22-31 also comes often to mind, which uses cultural contact points but doesn't let God go under the microscope of skepticism of vain philosophy and science falsely so called. More and more I'm convicted less time needs to be given to proving the Word and much more time quoting the Word and praying for the soul hearing it to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
This said, I'm a "Clarkian" and he does recognize (in some writing somewhere?) that reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate part of the witnessing project. I am of the opinion that the method of Scripture does matter to model as it also does with missions (I owe my thinking here to Prof. Steven F. Miller while at RPTS years ago--he is now with the Lord); here's a lecture I once gave on that overlapping topic reflecting his teaching and the required book for his class by John M.L. Young: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22012048456.
WCF 1:4: The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.i
i2 Pet 1:19,21; 2 Tim 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess 2:13.
Apologetic method, presuppositionalism: Bible is true because it is God’s Word. AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. Self-authenticating authority. 2 Sam. 23:2, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 3:16. Also, “Thus saith the Lord”, “And the LORD said”, etc. As well the Church (as the RCC would boast) is not the source of authorizing the books of the Bible, but simply the testimony to them. Thomas Watson writes, “ … the church holds for the Scriptures [as the pillar and ground of the truth per 1 Tim. 3:15], but they do not receive their authority from the church, but from God.”
______
My concern in observing my own apologetic efforts over the years is that I'd often walk way realizing I barely quoted any Scripture for the person to hear God directly as I'd get caught up in answering all the evidential arguments which won't save but only the Holy Spirit by the Word. Later on when I adjusted I'd challenge comments mostly with Scripture, and one friend (who had been a good Christian influence on me in high school but now sadly denies the faith due to evolution) said, "Wow, I've never had any Christian interact with me this way." Though he wasn't convinced then (only the Spirit of Christ can open one's eyes) I'd lean heavily on Romans 1:18-20 and say "you know this is true, even though you are denying it and I'm speaking to your conscience of what you know is true because the Bible says so and I'm bringing you directly to the Lord to hear His testimony directly in His Word." Acts 17:22-31 also comes often to mind, which uses cultural contact points but doesn't let God go under the microscope of skepticism of vain philosophy and science falsely so called. More and more I'm convicted less time needs to be given to proving the Word and much more time quoting the Word and praying for the soul hearing it to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
This said, I'm a "Clarkian" and he does recognize (in some writing somewhere?) that reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate part of the witnessing project. I am of the opinion that the method of Scripture does matter to model as it also does with missions (I owe my thinking here to Prof. Steven F. Miller while at RPTS years ago--he is now with the Lord); here's a lecture I once gave on that overlapping topic reflecting his teaching and the required book for his class by John M.L. Young: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22012048456.
Cranmer19591959
Puritan Board Freshman
I, too, like Gordon Clark's approach, although I have a few questions about his views on the image of God and the dichotomous view of man's nature.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Good neither does Van Til because if you focus on the noetic effects of sin you'd be right but he also taught common grace and the imageo dei as points of contact between the believer and unbeliever.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Junior
Amen to this. I am guilty of this in my past as well. And sadly, not so distant past as I like to imagine sometimes
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
