While our previous enounter on the issue of assurance of faith should adequately demonstrate that I stand in opposition to much of what is propagated on this blogsite, let me say that your latest YouTube critique of Dr. Greg Bahnsen was music to my ears. As a former Van Tillian, I have for some time now been seeking to convince my Bahnsenite brethren in Christ to acknowledge the obvious errors implied by saying that ‘the ontological Trinity is the ultimate precondition of intelligibility.’ Far from limiting the scope of autonomous natural reason, the Van Tillian perspective has now opened the door to the notion that the unchurched pagan ALREADY KNOWS THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW, which (according to your Bahnsen excerpts) includes an understanding of God’s Triunity and various facts about redemption, such as predestination unto life.
Over the past year, I have gotten several reluctant Van Tillians to admit to these things, attempting to show them how their position ultimately leads to a denial of the classical reformed understanding of the insufficiency and limited scope of natural revelation. Nevertheless, to hear such implications being openly taught and embraced ‘straight from the mouth of Bahnsen,’ as it were, forces all of us to take a step back and recognize the significant theological chasm that exists between classical reformed (i.e. biblical) theology – which I would argue has generally maintained a presuppositional flavor – and the destructively innovative presuppositionalism of Van Til and Bahnsen, which destroys the unique relationship between general and special revelation.
I noticed you subscribed to my site. Thanks!
You said, “Could Christ say, “I know MY transgressions”?? Maybe He’s not talking about sin He himself committed but IMPUTED sin (the sins of His people).”
Now this is true isogesis at work! Maybe I should post a huge critique of the dangers of isogesis using this interpretation as an example of trying to warp verses because of a hasty, shallow generalization of the Psalms.
This whole infatuation with “exposing” error is not about God but about yourself. You’re just like some of those “end-time” theologians that get into a zealous frenzy. Many are in hell who never doubted their salvation.
Allow me briefly add to Larry’s point.
“How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spririt, declared, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” [Mark 12:35-37]
You heard it, folks! Straight from the Son of God: David is speaking in the first person. He is speaking ABOUT Christ; nevertheless, DAVID IS SPEAKING THESE WORDS IN THE FIRST PERSON.
Psalm 137 includes perhaps the most controversial example of imprecatory praise, in which the Psalmist blesses the instruments of God’s wrath against Edom and Babylon in these words: “Blessed be the one who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”
This Psalm, however, is clearly not spoken by Christ in the first person, but rather by God’s people who experienced the Babylonian exile. Did Christ sit down by the streams of Babylon and weep? Did Christ hang his harps on the willow branches? Was Christ captured and taken into exile? To say that this was the pre-incarnate Christ speaking is not only to engage in rank eisegesis, but to destroy the entire historical framework and supreme relevance of this inspired composition.
Ignorance and zeal often enable one to avoid doubts as to their saving interest in Christ. However, confidence of this sort is more likely to consist in carnal presumption than genuine assurance of faith.
Comments (4)
While our previous enounter on the issue of assurance of faith should adequately demonstrate that I stand in opposition to much of what is propagated on this blogsite, let me say that your latest YouTube critique of Dr. Greg Bahnsen was music to my ears. As a former Van Tillian, I have for some time now been seeking to convince my Bahnsenite brethren in Christ to acknowledge the obvious errors implied by saying that ‘the ontological Trinity is the ultimate precondition of intelligibility.’ Far from limiting the scope of autonomous natural reason, the Van Tillian perspective has now opened the door to the notion that the unchurched pagan ALREADY KNOWS THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW, which (according to your Bahnsen excerpts) includes an understanding of God’s Triunity and various facts about redemption, such as predestination unto life.
Over the past year, I have gotten several reluctant Van Tillians to admit to these things, attempting to show them how their position ultimately leads to a denial of the classical reformed understanding of the insufficiency and limited scope of natural revelation. Nevertheless, to hear such implications being openly taught and embraced ‘straight from the mouth of Bahnsen,’ as it were, forces all of us to take a step back and recognize the significant theological chasm that exists between classical reformed (i.e. biblical) theology – which I would argue has generally maintained a presuppositional flavor – and the destructively innovative presuppositionalism of Van Til and Bahnsen, which destroys the unique relationship between general and special revelation.
I noticed you subscribed to my site. Thanks!
You said, “Could Christ say, “I know MY transgressions”?? Maybe He’s not talking about sin He himself committed but IMPUTED sin (the sins of His people).”
Now this is true isogesis at work! Maybe I should post a huge critique of the dangers of isogesis using this interpretation as an example of trying to warp verses because of a hasty, shallow generalization of the Psalms.
This whole infatuation with “exposing” error is not about God but about yourself. You’re just like some of those “end-time” theologians that get into a zealous frenzy. Many are in hell who never doubted their salvation.
Allow me briefly add to Larry’s point.
“How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spririt, declared, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” [Mark 12:35-37]
You heard it, folks! Straight from the Son of God: David is speaking in the first person. He is speaking ABOUT Christ; nevertheless, DAVID IS SPEAKING THESE WORDS IN THE FIRST PERSON.
Psalm 137 includes perhaps the most controversial example of imprecatory praise, in which the Psalmist blesses the instruments of God’s wrath against Edom and Babylon in these words: “Blessed be the one who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”
This Psalm, however, is clearly not spoken by Christ in the first person, but rather by God’s people who experienced the Babylonian exile. Did Christ sit down by the streams of Babylon and weep? Did Christ hang his harps on the willow branches? Was Christ captured and taken into exile? To say that this was the pre-incarnate Christ speaking is not only to engage in rank eisegesis, but to destroy the entire historical framework and supreme relevance of this inspired composition.
Ignorance and zeal often enable one to avoid doubts as to their saving interest in Christ. However, confidence of this sort is more likely to consist in carnal presumption than genuine assurance of faith.