Van Tils Credo

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by 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.

Can you please show me?

Originally posted by JohnV
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.

Of course Jesus only endorsed one apologetic method! Just because you have a hard time discerning it, does not make it any less true. Just because you think that it is not confessional does not make it any less true.

Originally posted by JohnV
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?

There are MANY issues that the confessions have not addressed. Does that mean that we should throw away our bibles and just use the confessions? It seems that this is the logical conclusion of your opinion.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by 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.

Can you please show me?

Originally posted by JohnV
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.

Of course Jesus only endorsed one apologetic method! Just because you have a hard time discerning it, does not make it any less true. Just because you think that it is not confessional does not make it any less true.

Originally posted by JohnV
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?

There are MANY issues that the confessions have not addressed. Does that mean that we should throw away our bibles and just use the confessions? It seems that this is the logical conclusion of your opinion.

Jeff:

You are misunderstanding me. There's a difference between details and issues. There are many details subsumed under one article, such as,

Q34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
A34: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises,[1] prophecies, [2] sacrifices,[3] circumcision,[4] the passover,[5] and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[6] by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.[7]

1. Rom. 15:8
2. Acts 3:20, 24
3. Heb. 10:1
4. Rom. 4:11
5. I Cor. 5:7
6. Heb. ch. 8-10; 11:13
7. Gal. 3:7-9, 14

This would include, then, the Biblical teaching that Jesus was the Son of David, that He was the promised King of David's lineage. There are enough references to that in the Bible.

I'm not saying that the Standards replace the Bible. They state the Confessions that we need to make in order to make a knowledgable confession of faith. If someone stands and says that he does not believe that Jesus is the Son of David, then we have direct reference to the Word. But when someone objects to the doctrine of the Trinity, and we show him all the texts of Scripture, then we can also show him what the Church has believed throughout the ages, by showing him the Confessions.

You assert that Jesus endorsed only one method of apologetics. But you need to show me that from Scripture. As far as it being not the methodology I use, I can return the same thing back to you

Just because you think that it is not confessional does not make it any less true.

or,

Just because you think that Jesus endorsed the presuppositional method doesn't make it so. Not even Van Til had that kind of authority.

But you see, that's just what I am objecting to. Who is it that is making these broad assertions at the expense of true believers? And on what grounds? And who gave permission to preach these things from the pulpit

 

[RamistThomist]

I do have one question concerning your own conclusions and the confession's silence on the issue: If I am preaching through the book of Revelation and come to chapter 20, am I allowed to preach a conclusion?
(Btw, i am really not a millennialist of any kind, so I am probably the closest to what the confession actually teaches)

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by JohnV
You are misunderstanding me. There's a difference between details and issues. There are many details subsumed under one article, such as,

Q34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
A34: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises,[1] prophecies, [2] sacrifices,[3] circumcision,[4] the passover,[5] and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[6] by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.[7]

1. Rom. 15:8
2. Acts 3:20, 24
3. Heb. 10:1
4. Rom. 4:11
5. I Cor. 5:7
6. Heb. ch. 8-10; 11:13
7. Gal. 3:7-9, 14

This would include, then, the Biblical teaching that Jesus was the Son of David, that He was the promised King of David's lineage. There are enough references to that in the Bible.

If one would like to use the standards in this general of a way, then surely one should have absolutely no problem with a minister of the Word proclaiming the biblical position on apologetics.

Surely this section of the confession is (if anything) presuppositional:

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture
IV. 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.[9]

9. II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2

However, it is not my contention in this discussion to debate if or if not a particular apologetic method is endorsed by the Westminster divines or John Calvin, but rather to challenge your own presupposition that one can only preach on subject matter found in the confessions.

Originally posted by JohnV
I'm not saying that the Standards replace the Bible.

But nonetheless, this is the logical conclusion of your argumentation.

Originally posted by JohnV
You assert that Jesus endorsed only one method of apologetics. But you need to show me that from Scripture.

Surely if one advocates that a particular doctrine is biblical, it is their duty to show it to be true, but this is not the argument. According to what you have advocated, this is not enough for the minister, he must show it valid not only from scripture, but from the confesssion, which as I have already stated above, is anti-confessional.

Originally posted by JohnV
As far as it being not the methodology I use, I can return the same thing back to you

Just because you think that it is not confessional does not make it any less true.

or,

Just because you think that Jesus endorsed the presuppositional method doesn't make it so. Not even Van Til had that kind of authority.

Agreed. But confessionalism does not make it true either, for even the confessions admit that they do not.

Again, the WCF on the issue:

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
But you see, that's just what I am objecting to. Who is it that is making these broad assertions at the expense of true believers? And on what grounds? And who gave permission to preach these things from the pulpit

God gave not only permission, but divine command for ministers to preach the entire counsel of God, if confessional, or extra-confessional. (I define "extra-confessional" as things about the scriptures that the confessions do not address.) No confession has ever endorsed this type of thinking, and therefore your argumentation is self-refuting. Besides this, the position you advocate I fear borders on a denial of sola scriptura.

 

[JohnV]

Jeff:

I think you are missing what I am saying. Let's do this one thing at a time.

Surely this section of the confession is (if anything) presuppositional:

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture
IV. 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.[9]

9. II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2

We should get some things straight here. First, as someone who uses the classical arguments and the evidences in God's creation, I categorically do not belong to that group that places man's reason above that of Scripture. We who are Reformed have always opposed Higher Biblical Criticism, and, in fact, that was what we were doing before Presuppositionalists interposed. Presuppositions were part of our conversation long before Van Til came on the scene.

So the article of faith that you speak of is not exclusively Presuppositional. You are excluding the same people that I, as an evidentialist, would exclude. The difference is that I would not call them evidentialists, because that's not really what they are. They are Liberals, Neoconservatives, and Neoliberals. They hardly fall into the category of a proper evidential stream of apologists. Don't number us among them.

But also do not number us among those who, without any authorization from anyone, especially Scripture, declare their methodology to be the methodology the Bible endorses. Especially, we cannot be counted among those who make the claim that Jesus' method was today's Presuppositional methodology. That's simply not correct. That's saying a lot more than anyone has a right to say.

If you would only read Warfield's "Apologetics", you will find that he is definitely not HBC. He does make a few statements that overstate the case, I feel, but these do not effect the main thrust of his treatment of the subject. His apologetic is best seen as being in opposition to HBC. So how his view can be summarized in the same category as those who make human reason, to the exclusion of outside authority, the test of apologetic endeavour is beyond me. It just isn't the case.

You and I are talking about two entirely different things here. I'm not at all a Confessionalist as you suppose one to be. The Confessions are a systemization of the doctrines of the Bible as a covenant of the churches, to abide by the Word of God within a set boundary. The Confessions represent that boundary. A lot of details are within that boundary without needing to be mentioned. The work of apologetics is also within that boundary. A lot of the liberties that you and I have are within those boundaries as well.

What some have done is to proclaim their particular methodology as that which the Bible specifically endorses. And that is not so. The Bible is far from endorsing ridicule from the pulpit of Christians in the pew who do not happen to agree with the minister's point of view. Even the OPC, which states that Presuppositionalism is the best defence of the Reformed faith, has not made Presuppositionalism a point of doctrine. It is on record, officially, that it is deemed adiaphora, a matter of indifference. When it is preached from the pulpit as the methodology the Bible endorses, to the exclusion of other Christian and Reformed methodologies, then the minister is making a sharp disagreement with his denomination: he is saying that he opposes the decision of his denomination that it is adiaphora, and that he believes and preaches that it is necessary, that is, essential and imposable, on the same level as insisting that Jesus died on the cross. In fact, in my particular experience, the Presuppositionalist I was dealing with elevated it to the same level as, and even as of prior importance than, Jesus' death and resurrection. It came first on the list of priorities.

So we should be carefull to separate Jesus' methodolgy from that practiced by those loose cannons out there today. Jesus would have opposed them. The one that I had to deal with would be identified more with the Pharisees than Jesus. Methodology is a matter of indifference. Not of unimportance, but of indifference. It is saying far too much to say Jesus' methodology was today's Presuppositionalism.

 

[JohnV]

Can anyone tell me where the notion came from that Jesus' apologetic methodology was Presuppositionalist?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by JohnV
Can anyone tell me where the notion came from that Jesus' apologetic methodology was Presuppositionalist?

I would recommend the lecture by John Robbins The Apologetics of Jesus and Paul

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by JohnV
Can anyone tell me where the notion came from that Jesus' apologetic methodology was Presuppositionalist?

Either for me or against me. No neutrality. I normally don't use that line or argumentation, however. I never say (and on the converse, I ignore those who do) that my doctrine is right because it is Jesus' (or Paul's or Pharoah's).

 

[Arch2k]

The question also deals with the sufficiency of scripture. Does the bible really contain all things necessary for faith and life, or not?

It is my contention that the bible provides us with all of the weapons a person needs to cast down every argument that exalts itself against God.

Reading Ephesians tells us that the only offensive weapon for doing this type of battle is the Word of God (the sword of the Spirit), which implies pressupositional apologetics.

 

[JohnV]

Yes, I understand that, Jacob. That use of the word "neutrality" is common to both of us. What I had in mind was who the person was who put that forward? It sounds like something Bahnsen would say, but who actually made that claim?

By the way, that was cute, adding Pharaoh to the list.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
The question also deals with the sufficiency of scripture. Does the bible really contain all things necessary for faith and life, or not?

It is my contention that the bible provides us with all of the weapons a person needs to cast down every argument that exalts itself against God.

Reading Ephesians tells us that the only offensive weapon for doing this type of battle is the Word of God (the sword of the Spirit), which implies pressupositional apologetics.

Jeff:

I was wondering who put that idea forward. As an evidentialist I agree with everything you said, and even partially to the inclusion of a presuppositional help in the matter. But formal Presuppositionalism is not the only methodolgy that claims all those things you said.

I was wondering who originally made that claim, that Jesus' and/or Paul's, (not Pharaoh's) methodolgy was Presuppositionalism.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by JohnV
I was wondering who originally made that claim, that Jesus' and/or Paul's, methodolgy was Presuppositionalism.

I am not sure who ORIGINALLY made the claim.

Originally posted by JohnV
(not Pharaoh's)

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by JohnV
(not Pharaoh's)

I was referring to Jacob's post above.

 

[Arch2k]

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by JohnV
(not Pharaoh's)

I was referring to Jacob's post above.

It was tongue in cheek and a backhand at many evangelicals who look to the State for salvation. I admit, I had fun with it!

 

[JohnV]

That's how I took it. It was rather well done. Not Caesar, but Pharaoh. Well chosen.

 

[knight4christ8]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
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.

DH,
Please do not take this in any sarcastic tone.
This is indisputably made clear by the phrase "Light of Nature", which is equivalent to reason. In other words, that by which we see and understand. This term is brought to bear its fruit in chapter I of the confession in section 5. Upon stating the OBJECTIVE self-attesting nature of scripture in section 4, the SUBJECTIVE nature of scripture (how we are to test and know its authority) is in no way said to be self-attesting to the heart of man, but is stated as being authoritative and proven to each person to be the word of God through "arguments" which presuppose the ability of all men to use reason, testing Scripture and seeing it to be the Word of God as the Israelites were encouraged to do (Deut 18:20).

"5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are ARGUMENTS whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

 

[RamistThomist]

That illustrates the problem--I have a different view on light of nature. But as I saw John making his argument, I concluded from his words that we can't even say the confession teaches apologetics.

 

[knight4christ8]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
That illustrates the problem--I have a different view on light of nature. But as I saw John making his argument, I concluded from his words that we can't even say the confession teaches apologetics.

Are apologists not the warriors who are to extinguish the flaming darts of the evil one by the shield of faith? Arguments, obtained by maturing in faith, are the means by which these darts are extinguished. In section 5, cited above, arguments are the main focus of the passage, and these God has chosen to be defined and put forth by those of faith.

BTW, what is your view on the " . . . light of nature". Can't we simply parse the phrase? - - -
"Light": that by which darkness is expelled and cognitive infomation can be obtained by the knower. Hence, "that by which we see and understand" . . .
and "of Nature": the preposition 'of' pointing to the subject 'Light' as being that which finds its source in 'Nature'

This phrase is used in 1.6, 10.4, 20.4 and 21.1, and each time is dinstinctively inferring it to be a means by which man is to know and discern the truth in righteousness from creation.

[Edited on 04/04/2005 by knight4christ8]

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
That illustrates the problem--I have a different view on light of nature. But as I saw John making his argument, I concluded from his words that we can't even say the confession teaches apologetics.

I'm not sure I understand, Jacob. Maybe I used too general a term, and was misunderstood. I can do that sometimes. I meant to keep a distinction between teaching and opinion.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by knight4christ8

Originally posted by Draught Horse
That illustrates the problem--I have a different view on light of nature. But as I saw John making his argument, I concluded from his words that we can't even say the confession teaches apologetics.

Are apologists not the warriors who are to extinguish the flaming darts of the evil one by the shield of faith? Arguments, obtained by maturing in faith, are the means by which these darts are extinguished. In section 5, cited above, arguments are the main focus of the passage, and these God has chosen to be defined and put forth by those of faith.

BTW, what is your view on the " . . . light of nature". Can't we simply parse the phrase? - - -
"Light": that by which darkness is expelled and cognitive infomation can be obtained by the knower. Hence, "that by which we see and understand" . . .
and "of Nature": the preposition 'of' pointing to the subject 'Light' as being that which finds its source in 'Nature'

This phrase is used in 1.6, 10.4, 20.4 and 21.1, and each time is dinstinctively inferring it to be a means by which man is to know and discern the truth in righteousness from creation.

[Edited on 04/04/2005 by knight4christ8]

If you are merely talking about natural revelation, fine. No argument here. If you are talking about natural theology, that is something else.

 

[knight4christ8]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
If you are merely talking about natural revelation, fine. No argument here. If you are talking about natural theology, that is something else.

Cool. So, what is the distinct difference in your mind?

To get at the Van Tillian distinctive . . . wouldn't this "light of nature", as a means by which to know and discern the truth of God from creation, be a "point of contact" with which the believer and unbeliever alike should be approached?

 

[JohnV]

This is what I actually said,

The Confessions are a systemization of the doctrines of the Bible as a covenant of the churches, to abide by the Word of God within a set boundary. The Confessions represent that boundary. A lot of details are within that boundary without needing to be mentioned. The work of apologetics is also within that boundary. A lot of the liberties that you and I have are within those boundaries as well.

What some have done is to proclaim their particular methodology as that which the Bible specifically endorses. And that is not so. The Bible is far from endorsing ridicule from the pulpit of Christians in the pew who do not happen to agree with the minister's point of view. Even the OPC, which states that Presuppositionalism is the best defence of the Reformed faith, has not made Presuppositionalism a point of doctrine. It is on record, officially, that it is deemed adiaphora, a matter of indifference.

Just trying to clarify that I did not say that the Confessions do not teach apologetics. That was not my argument.