RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
am firmly convinced on the Protestant and Biblical doctrine of Sola
Scriptura; however, I am having trouble with Bahnsen's analysis of Van
Til's view on the Bible. Bahnsen raises the question this way (and
procedes to answer it, although I am having difficulty following him on
this one):
[i:32ed19da4d]"For how did we know that God's revelation found there is true" For
us who did not see the miracles or speak to the Savior, what is the
evidence that warrants believing the claims made by the Bible about the
Savior (Bahnsen, CVT: Readings and Analysis, 198)?[/i:32ed19da4d]
I agree with what will be CVT's (Bahnsen) answer, but how do we justify
it in light of the charge of 'circular reasoning?' Now, I have
answered this charge with respect to God's existence with a 'rough' form of
the Transcendental Argument. Would a similar approach be necessary for
defending Sola Scriptura? I am on the edge of figuring this one out, but
any help would be nice. I think what Bahnsen is getting at is
something similar to the "impossibility of the contrary.' For he goes on,
[i:32ed19da4d]Who is in an authoritative position to say? The answer is that only
God could tell us reliably and authoritatively would qualities mark out
His word as really His...At some point, the message claiming to be from
God would have to be its own authority, and there is no reason, then,
why that should not be at the first point. Thus, only God is adequate
to bear witness to himself or to authorize His words (emphasis his,
199).[/i:32ed19da4d]
Scriptura; however, I am having trouble with Bahnsen's analysis of Van
Til's view on the Bible. Bahnsen raises the question this way (and
procedes to answer it, although I am having difficulty following him on
this one):
[i:32ed19da4d]"For how did we know that God's revelation found there is true" For
us who did not see the miracles or speak to the Savior, what is the
evidence that warrants believing the claims made by the Bible about the
Savior (Bahnsen, CVT: Readings and Analysis, 198)?[/i:32ed19da4d]
I agree with what will be CVT's (Bahnsen) answer, but how do we justify
it in light of the charge of 'circular reasoning?' Now, I have
answered this charge with respect to God's existence with a 'rough' form of
the Transcendental Argument. Would a similar approach be necessary for
defending Sola Scriptura? I am on the edge of figuring this one out, but
any help would be nice. I think what Bahnsen is getting at is
something similar to the "impossibility of the contrary.' For he goes on,
[i:32ed19da4d]Who is in an authoritative position to say? The answer is that only
God could tell us reliably and authoritatively would qualities mark out
His word as really His...At some point, the message claiming to be from
God would have to be its own authority, and there is no reason, then,
why that should not be at the first point. Thus, only God is adequate
to bear witness to himself or to authorize His words (emphasis his,
199).[/i:32ed19da4d]