Van Tils Credo

[Civbert]

This came up in another thread. From Van Til's "My Credo"

IV. The Total Picture

A. My problems with the "traditional method."

1. This method compromises God himself by maintaining that his existence is only "possible" albeit "highly probable," rather than ontologically and "rationally" necessary.

2. It compromises the counsel of God by not understanding it as the only all-inclusive, ultimate "cause" of whatsoever comes to pass.

3. It compromises the revelation of God by:

a. Compromising its necessity. It does so by not recognizing that even in Paradise man had to interpret the general (natural) revelation of God in terms of the covenantal obligations placed upon him by God through special revelation. Natural revelation, on the traditional view, can be understood "on its own."

b. Compromising its clarity. Both the general and special revelation of God are said to be unclear to the point that man may say only that God's existence is "probable."

c. Compromising its sufficiency. It does this by allowing for an ultimate realm of "chance" out of which might come "facts" such as are wholly new for God and for man. Such "facts" would be uninterpreted and unexplainable in terms of the general or special revelation of God.

d. Compromising its authority. On the traditional position the Word of God's sell-attesting characteristic, and there with its authority, is secondary to the authority of reason and experience. The Scriptures do not identify them selves, man identifies them and recognizes their "authority" only in terms of his own authority.

4. It compromises man's creation as the image of God by thinking of man's creation and knowledge as independent of the Being and knowledge of God. On the traditional approach man need not "think God's thoughts after him."

5. It compromises man's covenantal relationship with God by not understanding Adam's representative action as absolutely determinative of the future.

6. It compromises the sinfulness of mankind resulting from the sin of Adam by not understanding man's ethical depravity as extending to the whole of his life, even to his thoughts and attitudes.

7. It compromises the grace of God by not understanding it as the necessary prerequisite for "renewal unto knowledge." On the traditional view man can anti must renew himself unto knowledge by the "right use of reason."

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Civbert]

 

[JohnV]

What I have done with this list is to place it side by side with my notes on Warfield's apologetics. Not the apologetics of some one with his own claim to position, but one officially recognized in the churches where this is now an issue, where men openly and freely use their offices to proclaim, either spoken or in writing, the necessity of Van Til's methodology. Notice that even in this late document of his, he still does not arrogate that much to himself or his method so as to equate it with Biblical doctrine, and even to supersede Biblical doctrine by making Presuppositionalism an apologetic as a basis for these doctrines.

Just as these criticisms must be taken seriously by the Christian, to be sure that if there is any truth to them that the Christian faces them willingly, self-assessingly, humbly, and contritely, so and just so, the Presuppositionalist must also take seriously the counter charge that these criticisms have little to do with the apologetic approach taken by many like myself who are disposed to include evidential and classical arguments I have in common with Warfield, and which are found in the rich heritage of our Church of all ages. I'm not saying that I agree fully with Warfield, for I have a few minor differences with some of his statements, which I consider over-estimations. But they are minor, which I feel confident he too would have changed had he anticipated the modern discussions.

The questions that come out are: does my approach of defending the truths of the Word really make these errors? One must examine one's self honestly and humbly to answer these questions. It is my stand that my approach does not, even though it falls under what Van Til calls the "traditional method".

I brought this up in another thread not to debate about methods, but to ask the serious question of whether modern Presuppositionalism still carries the same foundational precepts that Van Til originally laid out. His most basic precept is the "self-attesting Christ of Scripture", but am I mistaken that I see Presuppositionalists now standing for an impersonal revelation of logic, proposition, doctrine, etc., but no personal Holy Spirit or Jesus, and hence no personal Father? By "personal" I do not mean it in the sense of "my own personal Jesus", but rather as knowable persons of the Trinity, which is what the Bible is about. Am I wrong that some hold that all we have revealed to us is propositions from which to reason, but not a connection of hearts to hearts, minds to minds, through communication of the Word? Am I wrong in discerning that the very thing that Van Til objected to so much is now the very thing his methodology heirs propagate?

 

[JohnV]

Can I find even one Presuppositionalist who is just as shocked about the fact that ministers preach Presuppositionalism as doctrine, using their office to protect it from criticism ( to oppose it is to oppose the gospel ), and the pulpit to proclaim it? Is there any Presuppositionalist that was as shocked as I about Mark Rushdooney's speach at the Chalcedon Foundation convention? It is NOT doctrine; and to preach as doctrine what is not doctrine is one of the first and biggest errors a minister can make. Is there a serious Presuppositionalist out there?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by JohnV
Can I find even one Presuppositionalist who is just as shocked about the fact that ministers preach Presuppositionalism as doctrine, using their office to protect it from criticism ( to oppose it is to oppose the gospel ), and the pulpit to proclaim it? Is there any Presuppositionalist that was as shocked as I about Mark Rushdooney's speach at the Chalcedon Foundation convention? It is NOT doctrine; and to preach as doctrine what is not doctrine is one of the first and biggest errors a minister can make. Is there a serious Presuppositionalist out there?

You probably won't find one because I have sat under the ministry of three or four pastors who hold to a presuppositional apologetic (from differing traditions, for that matter) who have NOT made it a matter of fellowship (or whatever). I grieve for you that you have been wronged by presupps in the past. As sensitive an issue as this is, it is also yours (and their) experience. Beyond that it can't be used as a negative critique for the invalidity of presuppositionalism.

Let's turn the argument around. I don't see Classical apologetics mentioned in the confession (although an argument can be made for presup), so it can never be mentioned in the context of the church.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by JohnV
Can I find even one Presuppositionalist who is just as shocked about the fact that ministers preach Presuppositionalism as doctrine, using their office to protect it from criticism ( to oppose it is to oppose the gospel ), and the pulpit to proclaim it? Is there any Presuppositionalist that was as shocked as I about Mark Rushdooney's speach at the Chalcedon Foundation convention? It is NOT doctrine; and to preach as doctrine what is not doctrine is one of the first and biggest errors a minister can make. Is there a serious Presuppositionalist out there?

You probably won't find one because I have sat under the ministry of three or four pastors who hold to a presuppositional apologetic (from differing traditions, for that matter) who have NOT made it a matter of fellowship (or whatever). I grieve for you that you have been wronged by presupps in the past. As sensitive an issue as this is, it is also yours (and their) experience. Beyond that it can't be used as a negative critique for the invalidity of presuppositionalism.

Let's turn the argument around. I don't see Classical apologetics mentioned in the confession (although an argument can be made for presup), so it can never be mentioned in the context of the church.

Classical methods, loosely defined, have not, to my knowledge, been used in the same context as Presuppositionalism has been. Nor have any classically-oriented apologists specifically classified and defined themselves apart by their methods prior to the the uprise of Presuppositionalism, but rather as to the theology they embraced.

Whether or not this is my experience is not the issue. I was not at the Chalcedon conference, and yet Mark Rushdooney clearly made it not only doctrinal, but a cornerstone doctrine, one upon which his view of the Reformed faith hinges. This is unique in Christian history, other than harking back to the time immediately prior to the Reformation.

This has nothing to do with my personal experiences; it is a matter of public record. Are ministers allowed to create or dictate doctrines that are not covenanted under the charter of the church, and for which members take no knowledgeable vows? If a Reconstructionist minster is newly installed in a local church, may he suddenly insist upon doctrines which none of the members have ever taken vows, and for which there is no church authorization? If he does so, is this not a breach office?

And are Presuppositionalists sensitive to the key elements of what church is in proclaiming their agenda? Does this not militate directly against the very things that spurred Dr. Van Til toward presuppositional method in the first place?

 

[RamistThomist]

I will be honest with you, John; I did not understand your last paragraph.
I was at the Rushdoony conference and that was NOT my impression of Mark's speech.
As to your third paragraph, I would need clear examples of what you are talking about. Specifics. To be honest, I am confused as to your point.

 

[JohnV]

Jacob:

I was making a rather lengthy post, but I lost it when I did not save it before hitting the post button. It's pretty well gone.

It was a statement that I want to make before I leave the Board. I will be leaving at the latest by the end of April. Some things have happened that made it necessary for me to consider signing off sooner. But as long as resignation is not necessary, I will try to remain as long as I can. The "things" I am referring to are unrelated to the Board, but to my personal struggles.

I want to be fair to you, Jacob. I mean no ill intention to you. I still believe with all my heart that you need not give up any or your zeal or aspirations for some of the causes you hold to. I am also persuaded that you can hold them without the prerequisite of Presuppositionalism. In other words, I believe you can give up Presuppositionalism without doing any harm at all to your concepts of reconstructing a more just society upon Biblical principles.

Having said that, let me try to make what I said earlier a little clearer.

In the last paragraph of my previous post I said

And are Presuppositionalists sensitive to the key elements of what church is in proclaiming their agenda? Does this not militate directly against the very things that spurred Dr. Van Til toward presuppositional method in the first place?

I'm sorry for the grammatical slip. I was asking if Presuppositionalists are sensitive to the same key elements that were important when I first made profession of faith, when my parents and grandparents also did the same, and to the very same confessional standard? When they proclaim their agenda of Presuppositionalism, do they realize that me, my parents, and my grandparents never promised submission to Presuppositionalism? We held to the self-attesting Christ, proclaimed in Scripture, every bit as much as Dr. Van Til. By making Presuppositionalism now an important tenet of the Christian faith, to the point that some think it to be sin not to interpret general and special revelation throught it, do Presuppositionalists feel the same sensitivity to what is being compromised? Do you know why I am willing to be excommunicated, not because of Presuppositionalism, but because Presuppositionalism is being illigitimately propounded in the churches, through the abuse of the church and her offices.

This was Van Til's major concern as well in opposing what he called the "traditional method".


As to clear examples, I've copied Anthony's first post here onto an open document, and am working on it. It will be a more thorough statement, taking each of Van Til's points one by one, and applying it to Presuppositionalism.

As to your attendance at the conference, I understand that you did not get the same reaction from it that I did when I read Rushdooney's speach. That's the problem, as I see it. You did not see it. But it was clear enough what he did. And it was clear enough that the direction was to members of churches, to take back with them to work these principles into their callings within their churches as part of their membership in Christ. The point that I'm trying to make is that you have no hope of saying anything convincing to me if you do not take into account my depth of knowledge in doctrine and church, that you will not get any where by stepping on that depth, but only by working through them. In other words. if you are so convinced that Presuppositionalism is right, and see no impediment to using the office of minister of the Word and the place of the preaching of the gospel, the pulpit, to proclaim it, even though the church has not placed it into the doctrinal standards, then you have done irreparable damage to your cause, in my eyes. You will have done the very thing that demonstrates clearly to me that it is not of God, because you have not submitted it to Him first.

That's what I mean when I say that my former minster and a high-ranking professor of Presuppositionalism have forever cured me of ever being one. If you show me that you have no ties to them, and yet remain a Presuppositionalist, then I have to give it another consideration. But, then, if you go and do the same things they have done, you might as well forget it. Nothing from God ever comes that way. We have His Word on it. The Canon is closed! It now must come through the Church, the plurality of elders convened according to Biblical standard, and duly appointed to the purpose, ready, deputized, credentialled, and willing and able to submit to the Spirit's leading. When the church rules it, then it becomes a proper subject of imposition upon the churches. Not before. Do this, and you may rescue it from the ravages inflicted by others upon it. And then I will reconsider it. As a matter of fact, only attempt this, and you have my greatest admiration, respect, and all the help I can afford to give you. This is not about presuppositionalism, the idea or concept, but about Presuppositionalism, the movement and the way it is gone about to propagate it.



[Edited on 3-19-2006 by JohnV]

 

[RamistThomist]

Ok, fair enough. I have no ties to the people who did what they did to you. Anything else?

That being said, if I believe Presuppositionalism is biblical, then yes I will defend it. That goes withotu saying for any system.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
That being said, if I believe Presuppositionalism is biblical, then yes I will defend it. That goes withotu saying for any system.

Jacob, you know I agree with the presuppositional approach to Scripture and apologetics as much as you - but I think you're missing John's point here. I say that because these two sentences of yours are dangerous if taken alone, particularly within the context of the Church's teaching role. For instance, if a PCA (or OPC) elder believes in paedocommunion, the framework hypothesis, Exclusive Psalmody or the like (i.e. things not endorsed by the Church's standards), he still had better not publicly defend it via his role and office in the Church. Indeed, that is the stipulation for the majority of exceptions taken by elders today - that they still not teach their individual views on the matter.

Even so, the issue of presuppositionalism is somewhat different from PC, framework or EP in that all of the latter are specifically contradicted by the standards, whereas presuppositionalism is an example of something that is not specifically against the standards (and in fact may be argued to be the most consistent with them, as you noted), yet is not specifically endorsed by them, either - which is what John is pointing out.

Honestly, I don't know what to think about what the standard should be for what elders are allowed to publicly proclaim, teach and defend through their office - 1) anything that does not contradict the standards, or 2) only that which is specifically endorsed by the standards. Presuppositionalism meets the former standard, but not necessarily the latter. What are some thoughts on that distinction? We all agree that #2 is the biblical standard with regard to the public (and private) worship of God - but what about with regard to the preaching and teaching of God's counsel?

 

[RamistThomist]

Hopefully we are just speaking past each other. On one hand no, I will NEVER say from the pulpit what the TAG is. For a number of reasons. On the other hand if the elders ask me to lead a Sunday School study on apologetics I cannot with a good conscience do anythign but a presuppositional apologetics. And I dont' think I am beind disobedient either. If you think so, well, we will ahve to agree or disagee. A few other points:

1) I don't think you are being unbliblical if you disagree with me. Weak apologetics, maybe, but not disobedient to Christ. And that is more than gracious than some people have been to me.

2) I believe our application of biblical doctrines can progress and mature, and I believe Van Til represents a fine tuning of certain points of Calvin and Augustine.

3) I agree with much of Warfield. I do not believe that one must take a side between Warfield and Kuyper. I think both were right and both were wrong on some points.

4) Etc.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Chris,
I think that people would have to take issue with the Reformers if they wish to hold to the "not explicitly taught by standards issues", because there were things taught that had not been explicitly taught and endorsed beforehand.

If one believes that those doctrines are okay now but were not okay to be taught back then; they have a big problem with their stance. They are reduced to saying that they just disagree that the doctrine is biblical and cannot bring church history into the discussion at all.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Ok, fair enough. I have no ties to the people who did what they did to you. Anything else?

The high-ranking professor of Presuppositionalism was Dr...., No, I won't tell you yet. But rest assured, you respect him.

That being said, if I believe Presuppositionalism is biblical, then yes I will defend it. That goes withotu saying for any system.

Fair enough. defend it with respect to the prior and more important precepts, keeping it in its order, respecting that an opinion is an opinion, and that your assent to it does not make it a Biblical position, and I will defend your right to defend it.

I tend to believe that the amillennial view of the thousand year reign of Christ is Biblical. But I don't make it Biblical. Do you see the difference? I know that I don't really know. I respect the fact that the Church has carefully kept it at arm's length for very good reason, simply because even the Church has no grounds to proclaim as doctrine what it has no solid ground from Scripture to proclaim. They might be persuaded, but that's not enough. It must have unquestionable Biblical warrant, the witness of its presence throughout the history of the Church, and all that on top of being sure that proper prayer, creditation, and even publication of meeting are all in order.

( I have seen a decision of a church, after a long meeting, a lot of deliberation, more than one round of votes, and official proclamation ready, be completely defeated simply because one man stood up and suggested at the end that a formal prayer had been missed at one point when it was supposed to happen. Really. That's how important all these things are. It turned out to be the right thing. We would have made a mistake if we had gone ahead anyways, it turns out. All because we missed a prayer, and someone happened to notice, the thing was defeated. The Spirit works in His Church for our good. )

There are here two different meanings of the word "Biblical". The one you are using is in indication that you believe it to be what the Bible teaches. The one that is needed is that it is one the Bible specifically states. You may believe that the Bible states something, but that is different than it being clearly the case that the Bible teaches it; so much so that it doesn't really matter to the case whether it is your opinion, because it is demonstrable, clearly so. We do not hold referendums on opinions on Biblical doctrine. Even a one hundred percent approval of opinion does not guarantee Biblical doctrine. It has to be clearly present throughout the history of the Church, and a precept that allows no other option; these too have to be taken into consideration. Otherwise we are merely congregationalists.

It may even be that this is how you feel about Presuppositionalism, that it is clearly demonstrable from Scripture, and that it was present as a clear teaching througout the history of the Church. But if the Church were at all convinced about this as you are, they would have made it doctrine already centuries ago. It is so important to show that Presuppositionalism was formally present throughout the history of the Church, holding the same position of importance that is now given it. But even churches which are overrun by Presuppositionalism have not made it doctinal, much less the Reformed denominations of repute in our day. It has never been that important that it comes before doctrine, before authority, such as is practiced in our day.

Do you understand what I am saying? I am under the strictest oath not to accept doctrine on just men's authority, or to accept men's doctrines as if from God. Not even if it came from an angel. In fact, that is a sign that it is a false doctrine. The complete doctrines of salvation have been delivered at the first, and are maintained in the Church by the Holy Spirit. I can't allow myself to be blown around by winds of doctrine.

Preaching it without a paper of permission from Christ Himself is just way over the top, in my estimation. I have no inhibitions about being expelled from a church which does this. It is, in fact, just what the Reformers did.

Defending it in a forum such as this is an entirely different thing. But respect to the fact that an opinion is still just an opinion is no less an obigation.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Chris,
I think that people would have to take issue with the Reformers if they wish to hold to the "not explicitly taught by standards issues", because there were things taught that had not been explicitly taught and endorsed beforehand.

If one believes that those doctrines are okay now but were not okay to be taught back then; they have a big problem with their stance. They are reduced to saying that they just disagree that the doctrine is biblical and cannot bring church history into the discussion at all.

Hermonta:

If you can point them out, then you ought to bring this up with your Session. I personally don't know of any. I think Calvin, and the Synod of Dordt, and the Westminster Assembly took the greatest of pains to establish that they were introducing nothing new to the Church as far as doctrine is concerned.

 

[JohnV]

Chris:

Honestly, I don't know what to think about what the standard should be for what elders are allowed to publicly proclaim, teach and defend through their office - 1) anything that does not contradict the standards, or 2) only that which is specifically endorsed by the standards. Presuppositionalism meets the former standard, but not necessarily the latter. What are some thoughts on that distinction? We all agree that #2 is the biblical standard with regard to the public (and private) worship of God - but what about with regard to the preaching and teaching of God's counsel?

I hear ya'. Good way to put it.

I, of course, stand with the second. I believe the Church stands on the second.

What you mean by the first, though, would make a great difference. If it means that Presuppositionalism may be taught, because it does not go against the Standards per se, then the others also may be taught on the same grounds. Someone on this Board has defended the fact that proponents of the FH fully believe in the same standards you and I do, the "in the space of six days" notwithstanding. They do not see it as opposing those standards.

But I want to point out that, as in the case of Mark Rushdooney, Presuppositionalism was given a position of crucial importance. It is not just included in the doctrines, it has become a central doctrine, a mark of orthodoxy. In fact, his entire system is built upon it as if it were a cornerstone. It is much more than just a doctrine like, say, the six day creation. It has ramifications into other doctrines. It has allowed him to go beyond decency and to proclaim Postmillennialism as necessary doctrine. So much so, in fact, that he now reads all of the gospel as millennium oriented, calling it Dominion Theology; that is, a new doctrine has been created out of thin air.

Now, that is not the case with every Presuppositionalist. But all the same, it should be asked what position of importance it is given. Is it enough to judge others as unorthodox, simply because they are not Presuppositionalists? May we judge them as being in sin? May we hurl scorn at them for no other fault than that they are evidentialists or classicalists? Are we really in a position to authoritatively say that they misrepresent God's revelations? do you see how this goes much further than merely not contradicting the standards, but allowing things not in them to be preached?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Hopefully we are just speaking past each other. On one hand no, I will NEVER say from the pulpit what the TAG is. For a number of reasons. On the other hand if the elders ask me to lead a Sunday School study on apologetics I cannot with a good conscience do anythign but a presuppositional apologetics. And I dont' think I am beind disobedient either. If you think so, well, we will ahve to agree or disagee. A few other points:

1) I don't think you are being unbliblical if you disagree with me. Weak apologetics, maybe, but not disobedient to Christ. And that is more than gracious than some people have been to me.

2) I believe our application of biblical doctrines can progress and mature, and I believe Van Til represents a fine tuning of certain points of Calvin and Augustine.

3) I agree with much of Warfield. I do not believe that one must take a side between Warfield and Kuyper. I think both were right and both were wrong on some points.

4) Etc.

On # 1, I am with you all the way.

On # 2, it depends on what you mean by progress. Certainly no new doctrine can be added, for the Bible has given us the full and complete doctrines of salvation. If you mean that these doctrines can be given greater light, then I agree. The Holy Spirit has done so, through the rejection of errors. This, more than Calvin's ideas, developed the Reformation. Calvin was merely an instrument of the Spirit. But when I say he was merely an instrument, I think that I am giving him a higher status than those who think it was his opinions which led the churches out of the Roman Catholic Church.

As to Van Til, that's what started this thread. I'd like to see Presuppositionalists take up his challenge with integrity.

On #3, when you put it like that, who can disagree?

On #4, that's the way I feel too.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Chris,
I think that people would have to take issue with the Reformers if they wish to hold to the "not explicitly taught by standards issues", because there were things taught that had not been explicitly taught and endorsed beforehand.

If one believes that those doctrines are okay now but were not okay to be taught back then; they have a big problem with their stance. They are reduced to saying that they just disagree that the doctrine is biblical and cannot bring church history into the discussion at all.

Hermonta:

If you can point them out, then you ought to bring this up with your Session. I personally don't know of any. I think Calvin, and the Synod of Dordt, and the Westminster Assembly took the greatest of pains to establish that they were introducing nothing new to the Church as far as doctrine is concerned.

I never said anything about "new" I specifically used the word "explicit". The words are not synonomous. Other words that I could have used would be "maturing or systematicized".

Also Van Til did not nor did he claim to invent anything new. So for any argument to stick, one has to make the claim that there were no precursors in church history for Van Til's view point, which I do not think can be done.

 

[JohnV]

Also Van Til did not nor did he claim to invent anything new. So for any argument to stick, one has to make the claim that there were no precursors in church history for Van Til's view point, which I do not think can be done.

The onus is (was) on Van Til to point out that his view was in line with church history. But, in fact, that was neither necessary nor obliged. He was presenting one method by which his students for the ministry could go out with confidence, facing all those who would oppose them in their work. I don't think that at that time he meant for his method of building confidence in the integrity of the Christian Scriptures to become either doctrine or anything more than a method to defend a ministry. So there was no onus upon him. It was his followers who made more of it than he intended.

That is why this thread was opened up, to discuss this. Is Presuppositionalism still in line with the first principles that instigated Dr. Van Til to develope this method or system?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I'm not so sure Van Til's methodology is that compatible with Calvin. Plantinga would be more compatible with Calvin, i would think. *shrug*

 

[JohnV]

Gabriel:

If you take Van Til's original syllabus, then it was compatible. In my estimation, it was the later, committed Van Til that forced upon himself some things that stood in the way of continuity with the Calvinian tradition.

But we have to be careful here. Calvin was a servant, not the inventor of church doctrine. He was an important figure in the church, in that the church was unified through his ministry of Christ's commission through him. If you will notice, Dordt did not quite put things into Calvinian order, but yet over time it was conceded that they were nevertheless quite in line with the same doctrines, and even expressed them more concisely and authoritatively. They did just as Calvin had done, to illumine doctrine through the rejecting of false teaching, and allowing the dictates of Scripture lead to a clearer adminstration of its doctrines.

I would say that this was Van Til's initial intent, going by his '32 syllabus. I think I see a sharp difference in his much later "My Credo". I have to say, though, that at this point I am allowing for no other of his writings to interfere with my analysis of his direct teaching on apologetics with Warfield's direct teaching on the same. One thing at a time. I was just struck by what he said in "My Credo", and how much that differs with what I have been reading in recent threads.

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by JohnV]

 

[JohnV]

Honestly, I don't know what to think about what the standard should be for what elders are allowed to publicly proclaim, teach and defend through their office - 1) anything that does not contradict the standards, or 2) only that which is specifically endorsed by the standards. Presuppositionalism meets the former standard, but not necessarily the latter. What are some thoughts on that distinction? We all agree that #2 is the biblical standard with regard to the public (and private) worship of God - but what about with regard to the preaching and teaching of God's counsel?

If I may, I'd like to go into this a bit. Let's say that the issue is the millennial views. Each one has been ruled by the denominations as not contradicting the Westminster Standards. They can't all be true. There are mutually exclusive elements to them. So to teach one of them as being true must entail teaching that the others are not. So, then, in teaching the one, one is contradicting the rulings of the denomination. For the denomination has said that the other views do not contradict the Standards, but preaching that they are wrong means asserting that they do contradict the Standards.

But that is only secondary to the primary concern. Who has given God's stamp of approval to it? That's the real question. Sure, any one of the views is dug out of Scripture, and only Scripture; but that is still a long leap away from saying that it is what Scripture teaches. It is one thing to say it is Scriptural because all the grounds come from Scripture; it is quite another to say that Scripture endorses it.

To assert that anything that does not contradict the Standards may be preached, or to say that anything the denomination has not called heresy and can conform to the Standards, may be preached, is to allow contradiction from the pulpit. But worse, it allows things to be preached for which Christ never gave His assent. And a minister is not a minister to his own opinions or convictions, but is to be firmly convicted of Christ's commission of the gospel in ministering it to Christ's people.

That's why the second is the historic position of the Reformed churches, indeed of the historic Church of which the Reformed churches are direct heirs. It is being direct heirs that was the big concern of many of the great Reformed authors that are often cited on this Board. Their concern was not to make a mark for themselves in being leaders of advanced ideas and theologies. It was not to expand into more doctrine, but to expand on the received doctrine. The protecting of the pulpit was a most important element to maintaining our ties to the historic church, all the way back to the Apostles themselves.

That was my assurance when I made profession of faith, that I belonged to the very same church the Apostles did, holding the very same confessional, covenantal faith.

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by JohnV]

 

[Arch2k]

To be honest John, I don't see the line of reasoning that a person must only preach what is explicit from the standards (at least this is what I hear you saying).

Isn't our only rule of faith and practice the scriptures themselves? Surely this does not give us license to preach whatever we want, but as long as there is truth in the scriptures, there should be a preacher to preach it. As long as there is truth in the scriptures, there will be differing opinions on the matter, but to say that just because there is no uniform concensus on a matter, it does not follow that 1) it is not true, or 2) that one should not preach it.

Are you just trying to guard against novelty?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
To be honest John, I don't see the line of reasoning that a person must only preach what is explicit from the standards (at least this is what I hear you saying).

Isn't our only rule of faith and practice the scriptures themselves? Surely this does not give us license to preach whatever we want, but as long as there is truth in the scriptures, there should be a preacher to preach it. As long as there is truth in the scriptures, there will be differing opinions on the matter, but to say that just because there is no uniform concensus on a matter, it does not follow that 1) it is not true, or 2) that one should not preach it.

Are you just trying to guard against novelty?

Jeff:

You are assuming that as long as we are convinced it is true, then we are allowed to preach it as such. But that is making ourselves the standard. The rule is that only what Christ has commanded may be preached.

The Standards of faith that we have are the inclusive doctrines that the historic church has declared must be taught at the whole counsel of God. These are what the Bible teaches, what the Bible imposes as right theology, as right religion.

What you are suggesting is the the RPW does not apply to the teaching and preaching. But if you look at the OT and NT, what is taught and preached is precisely the point of the RPW. Woe to him who claims to speak for God things God never sent him to say.

No, it does not follow that, just because there are differing views on something, it is not true. But yes, it does follow that, if it is not declared as part of the full counsel of God, men may not declare it so on their own, without the Church.

I am not just guarding against novelty, though that is a part of it. I am guarding my family against false teaching. Additional doctrines are not included in the vows I took. I have never given any promise of submission to them, if they are not properly brought through the strictly administered channels of the Church.

The world does not run to either you or me when trying to understand what the Bible says. It runs to the Church. It does not run to ministers who do not represent their denomination, but to faithful ministers who can be trusted not to mix their own teachings in with the Word of God.

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by JohnV]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
To be honest John, I don't see the line of reasoning that a person must only preach what is explicit from the standards (at least this is what I hear you saying).

Isn't our only rule of faith and practice the scriptures themselves? Surely this does not give us license to preach whatever we want, but as long as there is truth in the scriptures, there should be a preacher to preach it. As long as there is truth in the scriptures, there will be differing opinions on the matter, but to say that just because there is no uniform concensus on a matter, it does not follow that 1) it is not true, or 2) that one should not preach it.

Are you just trying to guard against novelty?

Jeff:

You are assuming that as long as we are convinced it is true, then we are allowed to preach it as such. But that is making ourselves the standard.

I am not assuming this. I am making scripture the standard. We must preach the Bible alone.

Originally posted by JohnV
The rule is that only what Christ has commanded may be preached.

I'm not sure where you get this rule, but it is not from the scriptures or from the standards.

The Westminster Larger Catechism says:

Q159: How is the word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto?
A159: They that are called to labor in the ministry of the word, are to preach sound doctrine,[1] diligently,[2] in season and out of season;[3] plainly,[4] not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power;[5] faithfully,[6] making known the whole counsel of God;[7] wisely,[8] applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers;[9] zealously,[10] with fervent love to God [11] and the souls of his people;[12] sincerely,[13] aiming at his glory,[14] and their conversion,[15] edification,[16] and salvation.[17]

1. Titus 2:1, 8
2. Acts 18:25
3. II Tim. 4:2
4. I Cor. 14:19
5. I Cor. 2:4
6. Jer. 23:28; I Cor. 4:1-2
7. Acts 20:27
8. Col. 1:28; II Tim. 2:15
9. I Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; Luke 12:42
10. Acts 18:25
11. II Cor. 5:13-14; Phil. 1:15-17
12. Col. 4:12; II Cor. 12:15
13. II Cor. 2:17; 4:2
14. I Thess. 2:4-6; John 7:18
15. I Cor. 9:19-22
16. II Cor. 12:19; Eph. 4:12
17. I Tim. 4:16; Acts 26:16-18

Note the citation of Act 20:27 "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God."

Christ did not command that we preach explicitly "the whole counsel of God" did He?

Originally posted by JohnV
The Standards of faith that we have are the inclusive doctrines that the historic church has declared must be taught at the whole counsel of God. These are what the Bible teaches, what the Bible imposes as right theology, as right religion.

True, to a degree, the Reformed Confessions are more or less these are the doctrines that the Bible teaches, but they are not EVERYTHING that the Bible teaches. Can you preach that "David was the King of Israel?" I do not think that you will be able to find this proposition in any of the confessions, but yet the bible declares this as true, and it is to be lamented if a minister shies away from proclaiming even a truth as small as this.

Originally posted by JohnV
What you are suggesting is the the RPW does not apply to the teaching and preaching. But if you look at the OT and NT, what is taught and preached is precisely the point of the RPW. Woe to him who claims to speak for God things God never sent him to say.

I am suggesting no such thing. I am suggesting that the Bible tells ministers to declare "the whole council of God" which leaves no stone unturned. Surely this includes what God has to say about the only valid form of apologetics?

Originally posted by JohnV
No, it does not follow that, just because there are differing views on something, it is not true. But yes, it does follow that, if it is not declared as part of the full counsel of God, men may not declare it so on their own, without the Church.

"declared as part of the full counsel of God." So are you making the Church the standard by which the "counsel of God" is to be judged?

The Westminster Larger Catechism states that ministers are to proclaim the whole counsil of God. This includes all of scripture. If a person strayes from the Bible, merely preaching his own opinions, then the sin is on himself.

Originally posted by JohnV
I am not just guarding against novelty, though that is a part of it. I am guarding my family against false teaching. Additional doctrines are not included in the vows I took. I have never given any promise of submission to them, if they are not properly brought through the strictly administered channels of the Church.

Surely your vows included upholding the scriptures no? The confessions are not to be made a rule for faith and practice, but merely helps to the scripture. I am afraid that you are overstepping their intended usage in this case.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXI
Of Synods and Councils
III. All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]

5. Eph. 2:20; Acts 17:11; I Cor. 2:5; II Cor. 1:24; cf. Isa. 8:19-20; Matt. 15:9

Originally posted by JohnV
The world does not run to either you or me when trying to understand what the Bible says. It runs to the Church. It does not run to ministers who do not represent their denomination, but to faithful ministers who can be trusted not to mix their own teachings in with the Word of God.

You are making a false dichotomy between "their own teachings" and the Word of God.

Just because something is extra-confessional does not make it any less the Word of God.

 

[JohnV]

I am not assuming this. I am making scripture the standard. We must preach the Bible alone.

Originally posted by JohnV
The rule is that only what Christ has commanded may be preached.

I'm not sure where you get this rule, but it is not from the scriptures or from the standards.

I don't follow you at all, Jeff. Aren't you saying directly opposing things here? If Scripture is your standard, and Scripture alone, then Christ's Word is your standard, and Christ's Word alone. Where is the freedom to declare as even part of the counsel of God your own determinations as to what is true?

For example: all three millennial views are from the Scripture. But the Scripture endorses none of them specifically. In fact, because not all things are fulfilled we cannot know enough to know which one is true. We have our own convictions about which one best conforms to the rest of theology, but we're not all united on that. So whose view is Scriptural? And which one is the one that Christ had in mind in His Word? If we make a mistake, even though we think we've got all our reasonings correct, aren't we misrepresenting Christ?

Paul was indeed keen on preaching the whole counsel of God. But since when do we have licence to add to it according to our own convictions? Where is the proof that one of the millennial views is the very one Scripture endorses? And if Scripture endorses one view, why hasn't the Church ruled it so a long time ago?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by JohnV
No, it does not follow that, just because there are differing views on something, it is not true. But yes, it does follow that, if it is not declared as part of the full counsel of God, men may not declare it so on their own, without the Church.

"declared as part of the full counsel of God." So are you making the Church the standard by which the "counsel of God" is to be judged?

No, I am not. God has done that.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

1Ti 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

 

[JohnV]

Just because something is extra-confessional does not make it any less the Word of God.

I separated these parts because they all address different things. This one has me worried. What do you mean by "extra-confessional"? You're not talking about asserting that David was King of Israel, for there is enough precedent in the Confessions for that. Are you referring particularly to an apologetic method? Are you saying that Jesus endorsed the one method you have in mind? That's is a mouthful, Jeff.

If this is so, then why did not the Church recognize that and add it into the doctrines? Its not a little thing that could be missed. And why do not even the churches that have sold themselves to that method not even deigned to add it to the doctrinal statements? Especially since it has become a matter of judging the orthodoxy of others?

 

[RamistThomist]

Ok, on one hand if I say that I will not teach "presuppositonalism" from the pulpit, does that still disallow me to say things like "put God first in your thoughts" and "God's word applies to all areas of life"? Is that unconfessional?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Ok, on one hand if I say that I will not teach "presuppositonalism" from the pulpit, does that still disallow me to say things like "put God first in your thoughts" and "God's word applies to all areas of life"? Is that unconfessional?

Not at all. That is quite Biblical. These are what we are taught to hold to. I do the same, and I am not a presuppositionalist in the formal sense. And if you do that presuppositionally, then you have my full support. Just remember what presuppositionalism is, that's all. Don't give it more than it is due. Keep it in its place. It is an apologetic methodology, and an epistemological analysis. That's all. It is a very, very huge step from an indefinite article before it to an definite atricle before it, from an "an" to a "the".

If you're going to write off any other methods or approaches, make sure you know what you're talking about. Before you condemn the method that the Spirit has blessed in my experiences, be sure you know what that method is, and what it is that the Spirit did and did not bless in it. That's what has been my obligation right from the start for the arguments that I have used. And I still submit them entirely to correction from the Word and the witness of the Spirit through the Church. I have changed them a lot, but they are no less evidential or classical; and neither are they any less presuppositional for all that.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by JohnV
I don't follow you at all, Jeff. Aren't you saying directly opposing things here? If Scripture is your standard, and Scripture alone, then Christ's Word is your standard, and Christ's Word alone.

What "Christ has commanded" is different in scripture than the whole Word of God. I admit that the Word of God and the Word of Christ can be interchanged, but Christ only commanded certain things. No RPW that I know of looks only to the specific "commandments of Christ" for all worship, they look to general commands of God (any person of the trinity) and apostolic example for their practice.

Originally posted by JohnV
Where is the freedom to declare as even part of the counsel of God your own determinations as to what is true?

As long as those determinations are scriptural, we are commanded to (see above WLC and Acts) preach the WHOLE council of God. In fact, following the RPW, you need to present to me divine warrant for saying that we must only preach what the church has decided on.

Originally posted by JohnV
For example: all three millennial views are from the Scripture. But the Scripture endorses none of them specifically.

But isn't this your unproven opinion? I for one believe that the Scriptures DO endorse one opinion on the milliennium. But following your line of logic, we cannot even preach the millennium in general, for the confessions do not address them.

Originally posted by JohnV
In fact, because not all things are fulfilled we cannot know enough to know which one is true. We have our own convictions about which one best conforms to the rest of theology, but we're not all united on that. So whose view is Scriptural? And which one is the one that Christ had in mind in His Word? If we make a mistake, even though we think we've got all our reasonings correct, aren't we misrepresenting Christ?

One would be misrepresenting Christ if one advoacted the wrong view of the millennium. However, it does NOT follow that due to the CHANCE of error, one should refrain from preaching this, as it is part of the counsel of God. If one followed this line of reasoning, one could not even preach on confessional issues, for the confessions are not infallable (which the WCF even admits). You are in essence making the confessions a rule for faith and life, which ironically is anti-confessional.

Originally posted by JohnV
Paul was indeed keen on preaching the whole counsel of God. But since when do we have licence to add to it according to our own convictions?

Nobody has advocated that people have the licence to ADD to the counsel of God by using their own convictions, but again, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that just because something is not confessional, that it is anti-scriptural. What did people preach before the confessions???

Originally posted by JohnV
Where is the proof that one of the millennial views is the very one Scripture endorses? And if Scripture endorses one view, why hasn't the Church ruled it so a long time ago?

Good questions, but irrelevant to the present discussion.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by JohnV
No, it does not follow that, just because there are differing views on something, it is not true. But yes, it does follow that, if it is not declared as part of the full counsel of God, men may not declare it so on their own, without the Church.

"declared as part of the full counsel of God." So are you making the Church the standard by which the "counsel of God" is to be judged?

No, I am not. God has done that.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

1Ti 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

This does not prove your point John. The examples cited only show that people are not allowed to preach a different doctrine than the one that scripture teaches. It does not prove that one must have confessional warrant for whatever is preached from the pulpit.