Cornelius Van Til falsely assumed that God reveals himself outside the Bible — in nature and in the unbeliever’s heart.
But Van Til also correctly assumed that God’s Revelation is equally authoritative wherever it occurs.
This
led Van Til to an awkward conclusion — that the Bible is not our sole
authority but must compete with the “equal authority” of Natural
Revelation.
Note: All quotes taken from “Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis” compiled by Greg Bahnsen
(This is more with regard to your site Godnoliar.com.) You’ve got it all wrong: DOUBT is all about intellectual conviction (or lack thereof). It may have no impact on FAITH. If I doubt this chair can hold me, this is an intellectual assessment. However, if I have FAITH that the chair will hold my weight, that is me making a choice that it will hold me. Faith and doubt, co-existing. I can DOUBT that FAITH, but it all depends on whether I sit in the chair or not. That’s the proof of my faith. Here’s my question for you: Was Thomas condemned to hell because he doubted? I mean, sure, in the end he saw that the Lord was risen, but he’d had doubts. If he had been alive today, and never seen the Risen Lord, never put his fingers in Christ’s side, would he be in Hell? Did Christ do him a favour by making him alive during the time of Christ’s resurrection so that his doubting faith could be reassured by sight, by proof? Did the father who cried “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” cry out in vain? (Mk 9:24) EVERYONE doubts. We ALL doubt our faith. We hear the whispering of the enemy and we doubt. We allow our intellects to take precedence over decisions we have made in the past, because we cannot see, cannot prove, or cannot accept in such circumstances. We doubt. Will Christ reject us all? Does he say “He who believes in me and never ever wavers, even for a second, will live, even though he dies”? (mutilated Jn 11:25) Christ said that we who did not see Him were even more blessed, for we have faith in that which we have not seen. It would seem to me that God values faith that has not seen more than faith that has. Surely, SURELY, the stronger faith, the stronger belief would be in the people who HAVE seen. Surely then, THEY would be more honoured because their faith is without doubt – for they have seen. Yet, Christ tells us that it is the other way: those whose faith wrestles over doubts because they have not seen are more blessed.
I’m sure I’m taking your arguments to an extreme that not even you think is true, but based on reformed.htm, doubters_refuted.htm and john_the_baptist.htm seems to suggest you believe that I cannot simultaneously have Faith in God but sometimes doubt. If I did not doubt, I would have that faith Christ encourages me to have, that moves entire mountains. I would BE fulfilled and Christ-like, the ONLY one who had perfect, doubt-less faith. I aspire to be like Him, but I know my faith shall ever be constrained by this poor humanity, and I shall doubt. God forgive me, but I will doubt. One day, that doubt will be wiped away. I look forward to it. I’m hoping this is helpful. God bless you.
Andrew, what do you mean by agreeing with van Til that “God’s Revelation is equally authoritative wherever it occurs”? Are you talking about Revelation here that is apart from His revealed Word (Scripture)? What does “wherever it occurs” mean/refer to here? (Hope you are not swallowing van Til’s nonsense here.) Regards, Reinhard.
Hey Andrew,
As much as I disagree with much of what Van Til said and wrote, saying that General Revelation, God’s revelation of Himself in creation, is of equal authority with Special Revelation, meaning the Scriptures themselves, seems to be true.
It’s good that you are careful on these distinctions because many under value their necessity, and while Van Til’s understanding of the nature of revelation can get very strange at times, this in itself is not a strange thing for him to say.
Sola Scriptura, is taken to be the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule in faith and practice for the Christian. The Bible alone has ultimate and infallible authority. But that is not intended to imply that whatever other way God has made Himself known does not carry its own authority within itself. God has revealed himself in the creation and the constitution of man, as created in His image so that every person is responsible to both know God and obey His moral law. This revelation is absolutely authoritative and infallible in and of itself. What makes it fail is a problem in the person, not a problem in the revelation. It is not a “source” problem it is a “reception” problem. All revelations from God have an equal authority; His.
The distinction comes in when we speak of the things necessary for salvation, or, Christian faith and practice. These things are not revealed in nature or in the constitution of man as created in the image of God. Those things necessary for salvation are revealed in ‘Scripture alone’. There may be things that can be learned from philosophy, the sciences, and human experience, what the historic Church has called “the light of nature”, but these are taken to be inferior and fallible authorities, apprehended through fallible means. Sola Scriptura takes the Scriptures as the sole infallible rule, but not the only rule. This is sometimes surprising even to the Christian thinker tutored in the thought of the historical Church because Sola Scriptura could seem to be saying that Scripture is the sole source, instead of the sole infallible source, and so the source that stands above and judges all other sources.
As an example, in my theological tradition, being old line conservative Evangelicalism, we are generally taken to be “the” group that defined the modern understanding of Sola Scriptura, notably in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1664 and its subsidiary documents. Notice that even to them, the Confession itself is an authority. It is a measurement of faith and practice. But it is taken to be a fallible rule fallibly formed and fallibly compiled. But it is not taken to have no authority, otherwise, why write it?
Think of the Apostles Creed. It is, whether the average Christian in the pews knows it or not, held to be an authoritative statement of the faith for almost every Christian denomination in history. Now, it does not fail. It does not “err”, so to speak. But that does not mean that the Creed in itself is “infallible”. A failure to fail does not imply infallibility.
But that doesn’t mean it is not an authority. When Christ arranged His Church, He set within her certain kinds of fallible earthly authority, like Pastors and Elders, and these while not being an infallible authority, are authorities established by the infallible authority of Scripture itself.
So really, the idea that God’s revelation of His being and attributes in nature, is every bit as authoritative as God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture, is a pretty solid idea. It’s not as if one revelation is less effective than the other. But the different source and the different, though in places overlapping, “content” of the two can be something that needs to be carefully defined.
Scripture in this is not the only authority, but the ‘sole infallible rule’, and while general revelation is certainly infallible in itself, because of the natural effects of the fall and sinful nature of man, incapable of any use in achieving salvation, and prone to be inordinately apprehended.
But to imply by this that men in general do not know that God exists, at least well enough suppress the truth in unrighteousness, even apart from the knowledge of Him given in the revealed word, does not seem to be the plain teaching of Scripture itself. One must know, in order to reject.
Romans 1:17
“For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
Christopher Neiswonger
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1.
“I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]”
“VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]”
Because I’m unfamiliar with Van Til, and your quotes are a secondary source, which makes it rather hard to locate them (a rather underhanded way to get your say in without allowing for any discussion), I’m guessing in the dark, just saying that he’s not necessarily “preaching a different Gospel” from the information you gave.
First of all, you’re so intent on ripping up Van Til’s position, that, well, you apparently forgot to read Romans 1, which blows most of your arguments out of the water, if you really take Van Til’s statements as he intended them, and probably makes clear in the context which I CAN’T GET ‘CAUSE YOU DON’T SAY WHAT SERMON OR BOOK IT’S FROM! But just so people who are actually interested in weighing Van Til’s position with proper evidence can, here’s Romans 1:18-21, which I’m guessing he was commenting on:
“For the wrath of God is revealed form heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
Van Til: “Natural and general revelation speaks with as much authority as does the Bible, albeit in a different manner and not on redemption.” You say that Van Til is saying his own heart and own observation of nature are the authority. From the quote you gave, that’s not what he said at all, but that God testifies about Himself in nature and in men’s hearts, which of course needs observation and interpretation to be understood as His revelation, but then, doesn’t the Bible by the Holy Spirit?
From the quote, Van Til is speaking from Romans 1, and in that context, the existence, supremacy, and deserving-ness of worship of God, I believe that God does attest to Himself in nature; and wherever God attests to Himself, He has the same authority, therefore it is not necessarily heretical to infer that nature and men’s hearts can speak with equal authority as scripture on this subject.
Eph. 5:13 – this, andrew_c_bain, is the most blatant misuse of scripture in this video. Ephesians 5 is not talking about scripture or revelation, the issue is living with deeds of the light as opposed to deeds of darkness. I’m not even going to go further on this one.
John 5 argument – Van Til specifically says “not on redemption.” Christ is specifically saying that He and the Father bear witness to Him as the Christ; He doesn’t need anyone’s authority to prove who He is. Van Til and Christ are talking about two different categories of witness.
For the point about 7:20 min, left, Van Til does not say we should point people to their own hearts, but to USE the innate, God-given knowledge of God as a POINT OF CONTACT to point them to the Gospel. We have to start our witnessing somewhere, though I’m beginning to think you might be more for the “beat them over the head with a Bible until it cracks their thick skulls” type of “witnessing.” Anyway, using their knowledge about God doesn’t mean we have to build off of every false idea they have; simply the knowledge that there is a God is a touchpoint to gain openings for the true Gospel. Just like… let’s see, I’ve done a lot of acting coaching. When I have to get, say, the sweetest guy in the world to be an abusive boyfriend onstage, I don’t tell him all about being an abusive boyfriend, I hunt for a contact in his own personality that I can USE. (In this case, the guy’s obsessed with ninjas… believe it or not, I found something in that that worked for the play). Same idea here – not necessarily to build off the wrong ideas about God, but to appeal to their existence as a starting point, Van Til isn’t saying anything more than this.
Van Til does NOT say “you don’t even need to open the Bible to listen to what God says.” In that instance, he simply says that just because you lock your Bible closed, you can’t escape God’s confronting you with the fact that He is. Does being confronted with God’s presence everywhere imply understanding, or not understanding exclude the possibility of God confronting you that He exists? I’ve no idea where you get Van Til saying each generation gets a fresh start? He’s going no farther than Romans does…
As for the bit on blaspheming the Holy Spirit, lovely job with the …. Right exactly where I was just thinking it would be really helpful to get his explanatory material. All the same, to say that there is an acknowledgement in the unbeliever’s heart that the Gospel is true, but to not understand and to reject it is possible, is not necessarily blasphemy. What about where God says in Isaiah “My word will not return to me empty,” it must have some impact on the unbeliever. And what’s to say Van Til isn’t saying this response is the work of the Holy Spirit to “convict the world of sin” (John something-or-other but it’s after midnight)
As for the husband/wife analogy – what if the husband is having an affair? That’s a whole lot more like the situation we’re talking about…
Your quote: “Clearly, we do not by nature know this. It’s not obvious. By looking at a finite world we cannot know an infinite God.” Man, if you’re going to rip apart a commentary on Romans, I’d suggest reading Romans… have you ever done so?
Okay, this has been way too long a comment, but here’s some tips if you’re interested in actually doing some good rather than just looking like someone wanting to rant against all famous preachers: 1. Use their context. And while quotes of the guy in a secondary source are well and good, I’m sure the secondary source tells you what the primary source is. It really ticks me off to not be able to locate what he truly, actually said. 2. It’s not intellectually honest to put your spin on something said that, to any thinking person (esp., for instance, in the case of the John MacArthur one, where, since I’ve spent time listening to him, I highly doubt he would say what he said he did.) If you must attack falsehood, please do it on someone who actually is in error, not just whose words can be twisted to look like error. 3. What is your deal with ripping very Scripture out of context and twisting it to your own purposes? This, I find very disturbing, especially from someone supposedly concerned about the true Gospel. If you really want to have an impact on people who think critically enough to even care if anyone’s preaching a false Gospel, I’d suggest you look at fixing those things, ‘cause right now they dig the foundation out from under your arguments. Okay, sorry for the long comment…
ugg boots have been a growing fashion trend for the last few years. One of the great things about ugg is you have a multitude of colors to choose from. You can have a different pair to go with every outfit. They come in colors such as: chestnut; tan; pink; black; blue; and so many more. You are not limited to just the natural colors anymore. You can also decide between short or tall uggs or even three quarter length. If you can not decide which style you want you can even consider slippers or clogs. There are new styles coming out all the time. If you still can not decide which style of UGG Australia you want, then buy them all. You can never have too many pairs of ugg suede boots . Imagine the choices you could have with all the styles and colors. You could wear a different pair everyday to match your wardrobe or even your mood. With ugg suede you are not limited in any way.
Comments (5)
(This is more with regard to your site Godnoliar.com.) You’ve got it all wrong: DOUBT is all about intellectual conviction (or lack thereof). It may have no impact on FAITH. If I doubt this chair can hold me, this is an intellectual assessment. However, if I have FAITH that the chair will hold my weight, that is me making a choice that it will hold me. Faith and doubt, co-existing. I can DOUBT that FAITH, but it all depends on whether I sit in the chair or not. That’s the proof of my faith. Here’s my question for you: Was Thomas condemned to hell because he doubted? I mean, sure, in the end he saw that the Lord was risen, but he’d had doubts. If he had been alive today, and never seen the Risen Lord, never put his fingers in Christ’s side, would he be in Hell? Did Christ do him a favour by making him alive during the time of Christ’s resurrection so that his doubting faith could be reassured by sight, by proof?
Did the father who cried “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” cry out in vain? (Mk 9:24)
EVERYONE doubts. We ALL doubt our faith. We hear the whispering of the enemy and we doubt. We allow our intellects to take precedence over decisions we have made in the past, because we cannot see, cannot prove, or cannot accept in such circumstances. We doubt. Will Christ reject us all? Does he say “He who believes in me and never ever wavers, even for a second, will live, even though he dies”? (mutilated Jn 11:25)
Christ said that we who did not see Him were even more blessed, for we have faith in that which we have not seen. It would seem to me that God values faith that has not seen more than faith that has. Surely, SURELY, the stronger faith, the stronger belief would be in the people who HAVE seen. Surely then, THEY would be more honoured because their faith is without doubt – for they have seen. Yet, Christ tells us that it is the other way: those whose faith wrestles over doubts because they have not seen are more blessed.
I’m sure I’m taking your arguments to an extreme that not even you think is true, but based on reformed.htm, doubters_refuted.htm and john_the_baptist.htm seems to suggest you believe that I cannot simultaneously have Faith in God but sometimes doubt. If I did not doubt, I would have that faith Christ encourages me to have, that moves entire mountains. I would BE fulfilled and Christ-like, the ONLY one who had perfect, doubt-less faith. I aspire to be like Him, but I know my faith shall ever be constrained by this poor humanity, and I shall doubt. God forgive me, but I will doubt. One day, that doubt will be wiped away. I look forward to it.
I’m hoping this is helpful. God bless you.
Andrew, what do you mean by agreeing with van Til that “God’s Revelation is equally authoritative wherever it occurs”? Are you talking about Revelation here that is apart from His revealed Word (Scripture)? What does “wherever it occurs” mean/refer to here? (Hope you are not swallowing van Til’s nonsense here.) Regards, Reinhard.
Hey Andrew,
As much as I disagree with much of what Van Til said and wrote, saying that General Revelation, God’s revelation of Himself in creation, is of equal authority with Special Revelation, meaning the Scriptures themselves, seems to be true.
It’s good that you are careful on these distinctions because many under value their necessity, and while Van Til’s understanding of the nature of revelation can get very strange at times, this in itself is not a strange thing for him to say.
Sola Scriptura, is taken to be the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule in faith and practice for the Christian. The Bible alone has ultimate and infallible authority. But that is not intended to imply that whatever other way God has made Himself known does not carry its own authority within itself. God has revealed himself in the creation and the constitution of man, as created in His image so that every person is responsible to both know God and obey His moral law. This revelation is absolutely authoritative and infallible in and of itself. What makes it fail is a problem in the person, not a problem in the revelation. It is not a “source” problem it is a “reception” problem. All revelations from God have an equal authority; His.
The distinction comes in when we speak of the things necessary for salvation, or, Christian faith and practice. These things are not revealed in nature or in the constitution of man as created in the image of God. Those things necessary for salvation are revealed in ‘Scripture alone’. There may be things that can be learned from philosophy, the sciences, and human experience, what the historic Church has called “the light of nature”, but these are taken to be inferior and fallible authorities, apprehended through fallible means. Sola Scriptura takes the Scriptures as the sole infallible rule, but not the only rule. This is sometimes surprising even to the Christian thinker tutored in the thought of the historical Church because Sola Scriptura could seem to be saying that Scripture is the sole source, instead of the sole infallible source, and so the source that stands above and judges all other sources.
As an example, in my theological tradition, being old line conservative Evangelicalism, we are generally taken to be “the” group that defined the modern understanding of Sola Scriptura, notably in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1664 and its subsidiary documents. Notice that even to them, the Confession itself is an authority. It is a measurement of faith and practice. But it is taken to be a fallible rule fallibly formed and fallibly compiled. But it is not taken to have no authority, otherwise, why write it?
Think of the Apostles Creed. It is, whether the average Christian in the pews knows it or not, held to be an authoritative statement of the faith for almost every Christian denomination in history. Now, it does not fail. It does not “err”, so to speak. But that does not mean that the Creed in itself is “infallible”. A failure to fail does not imply infallibility.
But that doesn’t mean it is not an authority. When Christ arranged His Church, He set within her certain kinds of fallible earthly authority, like Pastors and Elders, and these while not being an infallible authority, are authorities established by the infallible authority of Scripture itself.
So really, the idea that God’s revelation of His being and attributes in nature, is every bit as authoritative as God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture, is a pretty solid idea. It’s not as if one revelation is less effective than the other. But the different source and the different, though in places overlapping, “content” of the two can be something that needs to be carefully defined.
Scripture in this is not the only authority, but the ‘sole infallible rule’, and while general revelation is certainly infallible in itself, because of the natural effects of the fall and sinful nature of man, incapable of any use in achieving salvation, and prone to be inordinately apprehended.
But to imply by this that men in general do not know that God exists, at least well enough suppress the truth in unrighteousness, even apart from the knowledge of Him given in the revealed word, does not seem to be the plain teaching of Scripture itself. One must know, in order to reject.
Romans 1:17
“For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
Christopher Neiswonger
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1.
“I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]”
“VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]”
Because I’m unfamiliar with Van Til, and your quotes are a secondary source, which makes it rather hard to locate them (a rather underhanded way to get your say in without allowing for any discussion), I’m guessing in the dark, just saying that he’s not necessarily “preaching a different Gospel” from the information you gave.
First of all, you’re so intent on ripping up Van Til’s position, that, well, you apparently forgot to read Romans 1, which blows most of your arguments out of the water, if you really take Van Til’s statements as he intended them, and probably makes clear in the context which I CAN’T GET ‘CAUSE YOU DON’T SAY WHAT SERMON OR BOOK IT’S FROM! But just so people who are actually interested in weighing Van Til’s position with proper evidence can, here’s Romans 1:18-21, which I’m guessing he was commenting on:
“For the wrath of God is revealed form heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
Van Til: “Natural and general revelation speaks with as much authority as does the Bible, albeit in a different manner and not on redemption.” You say that Van Til is saying his own heart and own observation of nature are the authority. From the quote you gave, that’s not what he said at all, but that God testifies about Himself in nature and in men’s hearts, which of course needs observation and interpretation to be understood as His revelation, but then, doesn’t the Bible by the Holy Spirit?
From the quote, Van Til is speaking from Romans 1, and in that context, the existence, supremacy, and deserving-ness of worship of God, I believe that God does attest to Himself in nature; and wherever God attests to Himself, He has the same authority, therefore it is not necessarily heretical to infer that nature and men’s hearts can speak with equal authority as scripture on this subject.
Eph. 5:13 – this, andrew_c_bain, is the most blatant misuse of scripture in this video. Ephesians 5 is not talking about scripture or revelation, the issue is living with deeds of the light as opposed to deeds of darkness. I’m not even going to go further on this one.
John 5 argument – Van Til specifically says “not on redemption.” Christ is specifically saying that He and the Father bear witness to Him as the Christ; He doesn’t need anyone’s authority to prove who He is. Van Til and Christ are talking about two different categories of witness.
For the point about 7:20 min, left, Van Til does not say we should point people to their own hearts, but to USE the innate, God-given knowledge of God as a POINT OF CONTACT to point them to the Gospel. We have to start our witnessing somewhere, though I’m beginning to think you might be more for the “beat them over the head with a Bible until it cracks their thick skulls” type of “witnessing.” Anyway, using their knowledge about God doesn’t mean we have to build off of every false idea they have; simply the knowledge that there is a God is a touchpoint to gain openings for the true Gospel. Just like… let’s see, I’ve done a lot of acting coaching. When I have to get, say, the sweetest guy in the world to be an abusive boyfriend onstage, I don’t tell him all about being an abusive boyfriend, I hunt for a contact in his own personality that I can USE. (In this case, the guy’s obsessed with ninjas… believe it or not, I found something in that that worked for the play). Same idea here – not necessarily to build off the wrong ideas about God, but to appeal to their existence as a starting point, Van Til isn’t saying anything more than this.
Van Til does NOT say “you don’t even need to open the Bible to listen to what God says.” In that instance, he simply says that just because you lock your Bible closed, you can’t escape God’s confronting you with the fact that He is. Does being confronted with God’s presence everywhere imply understanding, or not understanding exclude the possibility of God confronting you that He exists? I’ve no idea where you get Van Til saying each generation gets a fresh start? He’s going no farther than Romans does…
As for the bit on blaspheming the Holy Spirit, lovely job with the …. Right exactly where I was just thinking it would be really helpful to get his explanatory material. All the same, to say that there is an acknowledgement in the unbeliever’s heart that the Gospel is true, but to not understand and to reject it is possible, is not necessarily blasphemy. What about where God says in Isaiah “My word will not return to me empty,” it must have some impact on the unbeliever. And what’s to say Van Til isn’t saying this response is the work of the Holy Spirit to “convict the world of sin” (John something-or-other but it’s after midnight)
As for the husband/wife analogy – what if the husband is having an affair? That’s a whole lot more like the situation we’re talking about…
Your quote: “Clearly, we do not by nature know this. It’s not obvious. By looking at a finite world we cannot know an infinite God.” Man, if you’re going to rip apart a commentary on Romans, I’d suggest reading Romans… have you ever done so?
Okay, this has been way too long a comment, but here’s some tips if you’re interested in actually doing some good rather than just looking like someone wanting to rant against all famous preachers:
1. Use their context. And while quotes of the guy in a secondary source are well and good, I’m sure the secondary source tells you what the primary source is. It really ticks me off to not be able to locate what he truly, actually said.
2. It’s not intellectually honest to put your spin on something said that, to any thinking person (esp., for instance, in the case of the John MacArthur one, where, since I’ve spent time listening to him, I highly doubt he would say what he said he did.) If you must attack falsehood, please do it on someone who actually is in error, not just whose words can be twisted to look like error.
3. What is your deal with ripping very Scripture out of context and twisting it to your own purposes? This, I find very disturbing, especially from someone supposedly concerned about the true Gospel.
If you really want to have an impact on people who think critically enough to even care if anyone’s preaching a false Gospel, I’d suggest you look at fixing those things, ‘cause right now they dig the foundation out from under your arguments.
Okay, sorry for the long comment…
ugg boots have been a growing fashion trend for the last few years. One of the great things about ugg is you have a multitude of colors to choose from. You can have a different pair to go with every outfit. They come in colors such as: chestnut; tan; pink; black; blue; and so many more. You are not limited to just the natural colors anymore. You can also decide between short or tall uggs or even three quarter length. If you can not decide which style you want you can even consider slippers or clogs. There are new styles coming out all the time. If you still can not decide which style of UGG Australia you want, then buy them all. You can never have too many pairs of ugg suede boots . Imagine the choices you could have with all the styles and colors. You could wear a different pair everyday to match your wardrobe or even your mood. With ugg suede you are not limited in any way.