24 comments

1. 

   Comment by Horeb's Cave on July 24, 2010 at 1:41 am

   While in no way an Arminian in my theology, I see some merit in the comment that a Van Til presuppositionalist has antinomy-like reliance in sola Fide accompanying his sola Scriptura. Does not a fundamental reliance on sola Scriptura – when evangelical Christendom no longer possesses the original canonical source documents (versus reliable historical composites of same) – require a “by faith” stand on the authenticity/accuracy of God’s Word?

2. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on July 24, 2010 at 9:33 pm

   I don’t think this is the case. Also recall that the law is also contained in Scriptura – but it is, per Galatians, the schoolmaster to bring us to faith. We are justified by faith – and not the works of the law – so there is obviously a higher emphasis on faith than law, despite it’s necessity in pointing the way. The fulfillment has been made, and the new covenant, with it’s better promises, is here. The Law of faith!

   “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” – Gal 3:23-25

   “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.” – Rom 3:27

   Yes, the reliance upon God’s providence in faithfully preserving His Word in His covenant-keeping perfection is both necessary and foundational. We trust in Christ Alone, by Grace Alone through Faith Alone, according to the Scripture Alone, in order that it may be to the glory of God Alone.

   “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.” – 2Ti 2:13

   His faithfulness to us is immutable, as is He.

   “”Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments” – Deu 7:9

   Note the connection between His faithfulness to us, and our faithfulness to His Word.

   “but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” – John 20:31

   That which is written, is written that we may believe!

   “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” – Rom 10:17

   Sola Scriptura is *indispensable* to faith, and to orthodoxy in the same. only by the Word comes faith – and by the preaching of that Word. We have a by faith stand, of course – but who is our guarantor? The ever-faithful Covenant God.

3. 

   Comment by Horeb's Cave on July 25, 2010 at 11:47 am

   RK,
   Good defense of Pauline salvation by faith alone and antinomianism. I totally concur that Sola Scriptura is indispensable to faith. My comment, meant to be a small one, not a major Clark rallying point, had only to do with agreeing to Clark’s point of “antinomy” that you seemed not to address. I assumed he was applying antinomy in its general sense – a fundamental contradiction between two ideas, both apparently obtained by correct reasoning. Not a reference to antinomianism, (what I think you focused on above) the “hot controversy” of 16th century, Protestant perjorative repudiation of Mosaic law via Lutherian “justification by faith alone”. I was alluding to the fact that since we have no Biblical canon “original source manuscripts”, Biblical content inclusion relied on early, heated debates within Christendom and human logic/scholarship: late 1st/early 2nd century manuscipts whose content is unlikely to have been “corrupted” with translation errors over time, the presence of anti-Nicene fathers and their manuscripts just a generation removed from word of mouth teaching from the apostles themselves, (hence a reliable “peer review” of doctrinal orthodoxy), and increasingly excellent ancient language linguists and Bible anthropologists over the ensuring centuries. However, in spite of the foregoing “helps” that ground reliability in Canon veracity, we must still – and finally – accept by faith alone the Holy Spirit’s oversight corporately throughout history – Scripture canon – and personally – in proper interpretation – of God’s Word, the only source and guidance for Truth. If we don’t assume this by faith alone, we are forced to admit the probabilistic chance that the scholarship, man-based, maybe man-biased, may be in error. Ehrman uses this logic to imply that IF there are minor errors (for whatever reasons) in some manuscripts used by some translators over the centuries, THEN the veracity of the whole is suspect; i.e. if God allowed error in His Holy Scripture, what other parts are in error, or does God not superintend Scripture at all? So, if Clark meant the above by his use of “antinomy” I was agreeing with him (on this specific). Sola Scriptura “Scripture alone required for knowing God’s Truth” requires Sola Fide “faith alone God superintends His Word, including “informed faith” as noted above” to animate Canonical accuracy/veracity/relevance. If these twins are not coexistent, there is a fundamental flaw/contradiction why one should pursue Sola Scriptura. Sorry if my Sola Fide “stretch” reference was misleading. Your comments much appreciated, (and your blog in general much appreciated)!

4. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on July 25, 2010 at 2:03 pm

   Good defense of Pauline salvation by faith alone and antinomianism. I totally concur that Sola Scriptura is indispensable to faith.

   I figured you did, from our prior conversations! That was why I just laid out a thumbnail sketch. (Just as a precaution, I do not defend antinomianism, although I don’t think you meant it that way. It could be taken that way, so I figured I’d point that out for my other readers.)

   My comment, meant to be a small one, not a major Clark rallying point, had only to do with agreeing to Clark’s point of “antinomy” that you seemed not to address. I assumed he was applying antinomy in its general sense – a fundamental contradiction between two ideas, both apparently obtained by correct reasoning. Not a reference to antinomianism, (what I think you focused on above) the “hot controversy” of 16th century, Protestant perjorative repudiation of Mosaic law via Lutherian “justification by faith alone”.

   Well, I’m not sure either Luther or Calvin would agree with that assessment of their stance on the law as either “anitmony” or “antinomianism”. Here’s Calvin (Book 2, Chap. 7, Part 1-2)

   “From the whole course of the observations now made, we may infer, that the Law was not superadded about four hundred years after the death of Abraham in order that it might lead the chosen people away from Christ, but, on the contrary, to keep them in suspense until his advent; to inflame their desire, and confirm their expectation, that they might not become dispirited by the long delay. By the Law, I understand not only the Ten Commandments, which contain a complete rule of life, but the whole system of religion delivered by the hand of Moses. Moses was not appointed as a Lawgiver, to do away with the blessing promised to the race of Abraham; nay, we see that he is constantly reminding the Jews of the free covenant which had been made with their fathers, and of which they were heirs; as if he had been sent for the purpose of renewing it. This is most clearly manifested by the ceremonies. For what could be more vain or frivolous than for men to reconcile themselves to God, by offering him the foul odour produced by burning the fat of beasts? or to wipe away their own impurities by sprinkling themselves with water or blood? In short, the whole legal worship (if considered by itself apart from the types and shadows of corresponding truth) is a mere mockery. Wherefore, both in Stephen’s address (Acts 7:44), and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, great weight is justly given to the passage in which God says to Moses, “Look that thou make them after the pattern which was showed thee in the mount,” (Exod. 25:40). Had there not been some spiritual end to which they were directed, the Jews, in the observance of them, would have deluded themselves as much as the Gentiles in their vanities. Profane men, who have never made religion their serious study, cannot bear without disgust to hear of such a multiplicity of rites. They not merely wonder why God fatigued his ancient people with such a mass of ceremonies, but they despise and ridicule them as childish toys. This they do, because they attend not to the end; from which, if the legal figures are separated, they cannot escape the charge of vanity. But the type shows that God did not enjoin sacrifice, in order that he might occupy his worshippers with earthly exercises, but rather that he might raise their minds to something higher. This is clear even from His own nature. Being a spirit, he is delighted only with spiritual worship. The same thing is testified by the many passages in which the Prophets accuse the Jews of stupidity, for imagining that mere sacrifices have any value in the sight of God. Did they by this mean to derogate in any respect from the Law? By no means; but as interpreters of its true meaning, they wished in this way to turn the attention of the people to the end which they ought to have had in view, but from which they generally wandered. From the grace offered to the Jews we may certainly infer, that the law was not a stranger to Christ. Moses declared the end of the adoption of the Israelites to be, that they should be “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation,” (Exod. 19:6). This they could not attain, without a greater and more excellent atonement than the blood of beasts. For what could be less in accordance with reason, than that the sons of Adams who, from hereditary taint, are all born the slaves of sin, should be raised to royal dignity, and in this way made partakers of the glory of God, if the noble distinction were not derived from some other source? How, moreover, could the priestly office exist in vigour among those whose vices rendered them abominable in the sight of God, if they were not consecrated in a holy head? Wherefore, Peter elegantly transposes the words of Moses, teaching that the fulness of grace, of which the Jews had a foretaste under the Law, is exhibited in Christ, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,” (1 Pet. 2:9). The transposition of the words intimates that those to whom Christ has appeared in the Gospel, have obtained more than their fathers, inasmuch as they are all endued with priestly and royal honour, and can, therefore, trusting to their Mediator, appear with boldness in the presence of God.

   And it is to be observed, by the way, that the kingdom, which was at length erected in the family of David, is part of the Law, and is comprehended under the dispensation of Moses; whence it follows, that, as well in the whole tribe of Levi as in the posterity of David, Christ was exhibited to the eyes of the Israelites as in a double mirror. For, as I lately observed (sec. 1), in no other way could those who were the slaves of sin and death, and defiled with corruption, be either kings or priests. Hence appears the perfect truth of Paul’s statement, “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,” “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:24, 19). For Christ not yet having been made familiarly known to the Jews, they were like children whose weakness could not bear a full knowledge of heavenly things. How they were led to Christ by the ceremonial law has already been adverted to, and may be made more intelligible by several passages in the Prophets. Although they were required, in order to appease God, to approach him daily with new sacrifices, yet Isaiah promises, that all their sins would be expiated by one single sacrifice, and with this Daniel concurs (Isa. 53:5; Dan. 9:26, 27). The priests appointed from the tribe of Levi entered the sanctuary, but it was once said of a single priest, “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,” (Ps. 110:4). The unction of oil was then visible, but Daniel in vision declares that there will be another unction. Not to dwell on this, the author of the Epistle to 302the Hebrews proves clearly, and at length, from the fourth to the eleventh chapter, that ceremonies were vain, and of no value, unless as bringing us to Christ. In regard to the Ten Commandments, we must, in like manner, attend to the statement of Paul, that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” (Rom. 10:4); and, again, that ministers of the new testament were “not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the split giveth life,” (2 Cor. 3:6). The former passage intimates, that it is in vain to teach righteousness by precept, until Christ bestow it by free imputation, and the regeneration of the Spirit. Hence he properly calls Christ the end or fulfilling of the Law, because it would avail us nothing to know what God demands did not Christ come to the succour of those who are labouring, and oppressed under an intolerable yoke and burden. In another place, he says that the Law “was added because of transgressions,” (Gal. 3:19), that it might humble men under a sense of their condemnation. Moreover, inasmuch as this is the only true preparation for Christ, the statements, though made in different words, perfectly agree with each other. But because he had to dispute with perverse teachers, who pretended that men merited justification by the works of the Law, he was sometimes obliged, in refuting their error, to speak of the Law in a more restricted sense, merely as law, though, in other respects, the covenant of free adoption is comprehended under it.”

   Further, here is a section of a sermon of Luther’s on the relationship of Law to Faith.

   “YOU have heard today the first part of the Gospel, in which we are shown how we should conduct ourselves toward God. What now follows is how we should conduct ourselves toward our neighbor. When He appeared to them for the second time, He said: “Have peace! Just as the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you” [John 20:21]. Of this we wish to speak. It is said that when we preach of faith we are forbidding good works. We have never preached that. Christ, in His life, never did a good work in order to become righteous, and yet He did good works all the time. From the time He was born of the Virgin Mary He was always righteous, from the very beginning of His birth. Everything that Christ did on earth He did to serve us. He did all His works for us and for our sake.

   Now we come to the same place. “Just as My Father has sent Me, so I am sending you.” [Jesus says:] “How has He sent Me? He has sent Me in such a way that I take upon Myself the Law, death, hell, sin, etc., even though I have not deserved it, but I have done it for your sake. Now you also, do as I have done today.” If I come to acknowledge and to love the Law, I fulfill the Law entirely, and that happens out of or through faith. Faith brings everything along with it, [faith] that says, “I have a gracious God.” [Jesus says,] “As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you.” There is no command there. As I have done, do likewise; if you do not do it, that is a sign that no faith is yet present.”

   St. Peter also admonishes us in this respect when he says, Satagite fratres, “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure through good works” [2 Pet. 1:10]. It is the things that we should do for our neighbor that are good works and are called good works by St. Peter. Just as Christ did not seek His own benefit and advantage, so we should seek our neighbor’s benefit and advantage. The works done for our neighbor show that we have faith in God and love for our neighbor. However, we become neither righteous nor saved by them. Faith takes away all works, as St. Paul says in Romans 13 [:8]: Nemini quicquam, “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the Law.”

   Thus we must prove ourselves before the world. How? By keeping the other commandments as well: “You shall honor your father and your mother.” If there is secular authority over me, I must obey it. I do this not in order to be saved or to earn heaven thereby; rather, I know that Christ was obedient, though He had no need to be, and did it for my sake. Therefore, I also want to be obedient for the sake of Christ and the good of my neighbor, and do it solely to prove my love. Obedience to parents must flow out of pure love, not to earn something by it or because the Law demands or commands it, but rather I should be free and certain in the promise that God freely made to me and freely gives to me. Thus I should do the works in such a way that I cast them out to be plundered—whoever gets hold of something can keep it. This is how the apostles admonish us to good works, not to become righteous or saved through them but to show that we are Christians.

   -snip-

   Cursed be that life in which someone lives for himself and not for his neighbor. And on the other hand, blessed be that life in which one lives not for himself but for his neighbor and serves him with teaching, with rebukes, with help, as it may be. When my neighbor errs, I should rebuke him; if he cannot follow me immediately, then I should wait patiently for him, as Christ did with Judas, who carried the moneybag of the Lord and had the duty of coming to the help of the poor; he always wandered from the path like a dog, yet Christ was patient with him and admonished him often, though it was no help.

   Faith always speaks like this: “Christ has done that for me; why should I not for His sake also do all things freely?” Furthermore, the things we do for God are not called good works, but rather the things that we should do for our neighbor—those are good works. Whoever is a regent should not think that he is therefore a king or mayor, [nor] that he may earn heaven thereby; nor should he seek his own advantage, but he should serve the congregation, so that my flesh may be tamed and it may serve my neighbor. I take a wife and make myself captive. I do this so that I will not stain or shame the wife or daughter of my neighbor. Before, I ran wherever I wanted; now, I am captive and must be satisfied with one woman, etc.

   First, [Jesus] says, “Have peace;’ that is, toward God. Second, “Have peace;’ that is, toward my neighbor. God demands nothing of us other than (faith and love (that is, [love] toward our neighbor); and the [works] that are useful to our neighbor are good works indeed. God grant us His help that we may love our neighbor. Amen.”

   I reject that there *is* a real antimony between these two concepts, any more than Paul has an antimony there. As Paul tells us (and Calvin alludes to above), “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” As Christ says, “”Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” We believe both, and cling to both. For we believe that the law had a specific function – and retains that function. Never did the law save, however. It cannot! This is why there is an inextricable relationship between the 5 solas. By Christ Alone is there salvation – the law is not abrogated – but it is fulfilled in Christ!

   See more on Calvin and the Law here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.viii.html

   I don’t think there’s any sort of antimony between the Law and Faith. Faith is in Christ’s fulfillment *of* the Law on our behalf – therefore, we now believe in a law *of* faith. The problem lies in the misunderstanding of the relationship there is between the two.

   I was alluding to the fact that since we have no Biblical canon “original source manuscripts”, Biblical content inclusion relied on early, heated debates within Christendom and human logic/scholarship: late 1st/early 2nd century manuscipts whose content is unlikely to have been “corrupted” with translation errors over time, the presence of anti-Nicene fathers and their manuscripts just a generation removed from word of mouth teaching from the apostles themselves, (hence a reliable “peer review” of doctrinal orthodoxy), and increasingly excellent ancient language linguists and Bible anthropologists over the ensuring centuries.

   Well, no one disputes that we don’t have the autographs – the argument from “probability” – that it is “unlikely” that “x” is corrupted, ultimately depends on what *standard* you use to determine your probabilities. Whether you consider “peer review” a valid standard, or linguistics and/or anthropology a valid source of *the authority of the Scriptures*. We do not, and cannot. They are “helps”, as you allude to later, but they are not the *source* of authority. Scripture is self-attesting, not attested to by outside sources.

   However, in spite of the foregoing “helps” that ground reliability in Canon veracity, we must still – and finally – accept by faith alone the Holy Spirit’s oversight corporately throughout history – Scripture canon – and personally – in proper interpretation – of God’s Word, the only source and guidance for Truth.

   Of course. That’s why none of the 5 solas, as I said earlier, do or can stand alone, or separate from the others. Our hermeneutic must be firmly grounded in Scripture’s example of such, and our exegesis must also be in accordance with Scripture’s own principles.

   If we don’t assume this by faith alone, we are forced to admit the probabilistic chance that the scholarship, man-based, maybe man-biased, may be in error. Ehrman uses this logic to imply that IF there are minor errors (for whatever reasons) in some manuscripts used by some translators over the centuries, THEN the veracity of the whole is suspect; i.e. if God allowed error in His Holy Scripture, what other parts are in error, or does God not superintend Scripture at all? So, if Clark meant the above by his use of “antinomy” I was agreeing with him (on this specific).

   Ehrman’s position reduces to an argument that without photocopiers, inspiration couldn’t have occurred, too. It’s absurd. I really need to get you a copy of the debates he had with Wallace and White. They point out the presuppositions he argues from, and the invalidity of them to our actual position. There’s no antimony in saying we believe (by Scripture’s witness alone) that it is the Word of God. Only God’s Word is sufficient TO be believed in such a manner – because it is the Word of God.

   Sola Scriptura “Scripture alone required for knowing God’s Truth” requires Sola Fide “faith alone God superintends His Word, including “informed faith” as noted above” to animate Canonical accuracy/veracity/relevance. If these twins are not coexistent, there is a fundamental flaw/contradiction why one should pursue Sola Scriptura. Sorry if my Sola Fide “stretch” reference was misleading. Your comments much appreciated, (and your blog in general much appreciated)!

   Yes! They are coexistent, and must be. When I argue from Scripture, it is both implicit and explicit that Scripture is self-attestedly true. When I was presented the question “what if God is lying to you?” in a recent debate, my answer was, as it must be, that such a “possibility” is invalid. it is, in fact, impossible. It is impossible due to who God *is* – and His revelation reflects that character and communicates it to us. As such, it is a self-attesting testimony of the God whose Word it is. Does that help? I may be misunderstanding your comments, of course, so feel free to clarify – and give me a call if that’s easier 🙂

5. 

   Comment by Horeb's Cave on July 25, 2010 at 8:25 pm

   Again, great response and discourse. Surely did not mean to imply I concur wtih antinomianism, just that it historically included this dynamic (and you are absolutely correct that Luther disagreed with antinomianism) – here is an excerpt from an easily Googled reference, “Antinomianism (from the Greek ἀντί, “against” + νόμος, “law”), is a belief originating in Christian theology that faith alone, not obedience to religious law, is necessary for salvation. The concept is related to the foundational Protestant belief of Sola Fide, or justification through faith alone; however, antinomianism represents an extreme of this idea, wherein adherence to the Mosaic Law is considered inessential in the Christian lifestyle, given the view that faith itself is sufficient to attain salvation. ” and “The term “antinomian” emerged soon after the Protestant Reformation (c.1517) and has historically been used mainly as a pejorative against Christian thinkers or sects who carried their belief in justification by faith further than was customary.”

   I suppose it can quickly become “chasing rabbits” to try and assume what our Arminian blogger friend was alluding to when he cited Van Til antinomy. However, one last attempt to crawl inside his mind – he may be implying that the presuppositionalist pillar of Sola Scriptura (presupposing also Sola Fide re: Canon) makes for a circular argument – using the thing as (the only) proof of the thing. Without doubt Scripture is the epitome of internal evidences/consistency demonstrating that the Word of God is infallible, and without doubt the best historical scholarship certainly supports external evidences of Scripture being just what it claims. However, if one denies any contribution to Sola Scriptura from any man-based internal or external evidence input, our Arminian blogger friend may be saying that what he sees from Van Til is circular reasoning, and represents (to him), the generic form of antinomy – i.e. a contradiction or mutual incompatability between two laws or statements. I understand your aforementioned “subjective standard” argument, but would appreciate your thoughts on Sola Scriptura not being circular reasoning. In other words, how about discussing why we CAN know what we know Sola Scriptura (considering the above antinomy concern and Canon veracity controversy) versus why we MUST know what we know Sola Scriptura if one is to call themself a presuppositionalist – the latter position I understand. Thanks for this interesting thread!

6. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on July 25, 2010 at 9:30 pm

   However, if one denies any contribution to Sola Scriptura from any man-based internal or external evidence input, our Arminian blogger friend may be saying that what he sees from Van Til is circular reasoning, and represents (to him), the generic form of antinomy – i.e. a contradiction or mutual incompatability between two laws or statements. I understand your aforementioned “subjective standard” argument, but would appreciate your thoughts on Sola Scriptura not being circular reasoning. In other words, how about discussing why we CAN know what we know Sola Scriptura (considering the above antinomy concern and Canon veracity controversy) versus why we MUST know what we know Sola Scriptura if one is to call themself a presuppositionalist – the latter position I understand. Thanks for this interesting thread!

   Well, there’s what Van Til calls “reasoning in a spiral” and what is called “viciously circular.” Case in point;

   We know that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, per Col 2. We know that that until we start with His Word, we have no basis for *any* reasoning whatsoever. We know that the wisdom of God is efficacious, while the wisdom of the world is futile. To *truly* know, we must *start* with the Word – but this is precisely the argument of presuppositionalism! We presuppose the Triune God, from His Scriptures, because it’s *impossible* not to. That’s the *must* – but it’s also the *can*. We are arguing that *only* by means of the Scriptures *can* we know anything at all, in principle. A bit of Van Til:

   “We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man. The method of implication as outlined above is circular reasoning. Or we may call it spiral reasoning. We must go round and round a thing to see more of its dimensions and to know more about it, in general, unless we are larger than that which we are investigating. Unless we are larger than God we cannot reason about Him by any other way, than by a transcendental or circular argument. The refusal to admit the necessity of circular reasoning is itself an evident token of Antitheism. Reasoning in a vicious circle is the only alternative to reasoning in a circle” (MA 24)

   “To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another” (DOF 118).

   “At the outset it ought to be clearly observed that every system of thought necessarily has a certain method of its own. Usually this fact is overlooked. It is taken for granted that everybody begins in the same way with an examination of the facts, and that the differences between systems come only as a result of such investigations. Yet this is not actually the case. It could not actually be the case. In the first place, this could not be the case with a Christian. His fundamental and determining fact is the fact of God’s existence. That is his final conclusion. But that must also be his starting point. If the Christian is right in his final conclusion about God, then he would not even get into touch with any fact unless it were through the medium of God. And since man has, through the fall in Adam, become a sinner, man cannot know and therefore love God except through Christ the Mediator… If all things must be seen ‘in God’ to be seen truly, one could look ever so long elsewhere without ever seeing a fact as it really is. If I must look through a telescope to see a distant star, I cannot first look at the star to see whether there is a telescope through which alone I could see it. If I must look through a microscope to see a germ, I cannot first look at the germ with the naked eye to see if there is a microscope through which alone I can see it. If it were a question of seeing something with the naked eye and seeing the same object more clearly through a telescope or a microscope, the matter would be different. We may see a landscape dimly with the naked eye and then turn to look at it through a telescope and see it more clearly. But such is not the case with the Christian position. According to it, nothing at all can be known truly of any fact unless it be known through and by way of man’s knowledge of God” (SCE 4-5).

   We CAN know via Sola Scriptura, because God Himself has appointed that as the means by which we are to know anything at all. As Bahnsen puts it, we must presuppose the Scriptures in order to truly know about the War of 1812, or even the chemical composition of water! In other words, only through the Scriptures is it *possible* to have knowledge of anything at all. That is why we argue by the impossibility of the contrary – that since all unbelieving worldviews destroy knowledge if they are consistently followed, we can see that the Scripturally mandated worldview is truly the only possible means of acquiring knowledge. Since this is how God has ordained it, that is the only possible means by which we may have true knowledge. Others claim to have true knowledge, but it is not in accordance with their presuppositions – they do not lead to knowledge – just knowledge, so-called.

   I think the general problem with the critiques that say Van Til is contradicting himself assume a position other than what Van Til held. Van Til explicitly says that circularity (to a certain point) is necessary *in order to* have knowledge – both knowledge of the *must* variety and *can* variety – because we don’t hold to a worldview which allows for equally “possible* means of acquiring said knowledge. That is why I’ve engaged probabilism so doggedly. It gives away the store.

   Clear as mud? 🙂

7. 

   Comment by Horeb's Cave on July 26, 2010 at 12:36 am

   RK,
   Maybe not “intellectually satisfying” to many, but it’s good mud. Thanks for your response. I hear you saying that, uniquely for the Christian Bible and experience, we defend the Faith best when we simply deliver the Message, proclaim with humility and “no frills” our Truth is the only one, and work to be transformed to emulate the Writer. So, presuppositional apologetics is demonstrably superior against any “subjective standard” and all other humanistic semantics/logic arguments. One last question I would appreciate your comments on – what to do when having a dialogue with “presuppositionalists” of other religions; how does one defend our Faith against someone who simply/adamantly use the same Sola Scriptura argument for their belief system/”scriptures”? Many Muslims/Mormons seem in this category; some may be erudite and willing to engage in complicated, arcane argumentation, but more are simplistic and dogmatic in their unwavering trust in their “scriptures” as the source of all “truth” and “salvation”. We can’t out-presupposition them. our presuppositions are different but held with equal fervor. Does evangelism mean putting aside presupposition in our discussion with them? Either we knock the dust off our sandals and shrug, agreeing to disagree or we …

8. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on July 27, 2010 at 3:30 pm

   Horeb,
   Sorry I didn’t reply – got into discussions with a Romanist and a Muslim yesterday evening! Have stuff to move for the wife, this evening, too. I didn’t forget about you.

9. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on August 2, 2010 at 6:40 am

   Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. We don’t out-presupposition them, no. They may claim to hold to a sort of presuppositional basis – in fact, Brian and I had an atheist try to do that with us yesterday. The problem with them doing so is where they are actually standing. They can claim to be equally valid presuppositionally, but they are wrong. What is their source of epistemology, their ontology, and etc? Take a Muslim. They hold to the Quran, so they say, as their basis for truth. Keep in mind, however, that in Surah 3:84, they say that they believe that which was revealed by God in the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians, and that there is no difference between them. Elsewhere in the Quran, we are told that the Christian Trinity is Father, Son, Mary. This is demonstrably false, as are the depictions of the “Mohammed’s mouthpiece” (Isa) Jesus of the Quran – he is an argument, not a person.

   The self-contradictory nature of their source of revelatory presuppositions is the problem. We could also speak of the Mormons, and their incoherent idea of “becoming Gods”, the historical insanity they engage in, and the like. Everyone has a final authority they appeal to, therefore everyone is presuppositional. Most groups aren’t consciously so, but that’s fine, we understand that they aren’t. Much of our argumentation will be to point this out to them. The problem, per scripture, is their authority. For the Pharisees, it was their supercession of scripture with tradition. For ‘ol King Neb, it was the overweening pride that set himself in God’s place. For the reprobate caananites, it was their trust in idols, who cannot save – which is really the fundamental issue with them all. There is no trust possible in a creation. Pointing out the nature of their idol, as God does, in Isaiah, is our goal. God tells the people to observe that out of the same piece of wood comes firewood and an idol. Is not the idol as easily consumed? It’s a creation, and therefore cannot save.

   Out of the same mind that tells us that the Trinity is Father, Son, Mary comes the claims to prophethood (also false) and the claims of Allah’s nature. The authority is not absolute, as it is demonstrably inconsistent even with itself. Scripture, as befits it’s nature and author, is not. There’s an example. Does that help?

10. 

    Comment by Horeb's Cave on August 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Yes, thanks. And yet …
    I thought you would go a different direction, maybe appeal Paul-like at the Areopagus/the fact of the Resurrection, etc. However, you challenged their “scripture” internal consistency, a correct thing to do of course. It may well force a person to reconsider their intransigent presuppositions of the source of Truth when blatant inconsistencies are pointed out. However, here’s my “and yet …” pause.

    You said – “We know that that until we start with His Word, we have no basis for *any* reasoning whatsoever. We know that the wisdom of God is efficacious, while the wisdom of the world is futile. To *truly* know, we must *start* with the Word – but this is precisely the argument of presuppositionalism!” I agree with all you said there, but help me if I miss the mark, it seems your statement is an extension (extending to include Scripture, God’s voice to man following the finished work of the Cross) of Van Til’s (Christian) presup logic you also quote – “His fundamental and determining fact is the fact of God’s existence. That is his final conclusion. But that must also be his starting point. If the Christian is right in his final conclusion about God, then he would not even get into touch with any fact unless it were through the medium of God. And since man has, through the fall in Adam, become a sinner, man cannot know and therefore love God except through Christ the Mediator… If all things must be seen ‘in God’ to be seen truly, one could look ever so long elsewhere without ever seeing a fact as it really is.” – I understand and agree with Van Til’s “spiral reasoning” logic here that makes “presuppers” of all us practicing Christians. My “and yet …” pause comes considering the extension of his reasoning to include our Bible. I can understand why we (need to) apply presup logic to it to complete the reasoning circle, and I believe the Bible’s teachings and have studied it for many years. If however, the correct way to determine the worthiness of the Bible as The Standard vs any/all others is to apply the internal consistency test you offered for Muslim and Mormon “scripture”, I (may?) have a pause.

    There are a plethora of internet websites that attempt to point out errors and inconsistencies in the Bible. Most examples are unbelievers who have not a clue as to how to do proper hermeneutics, or who are seriously biased and only assume the worst case. And, sometimes we just need a better linguistic, geographical, cultural, or historical perspective to understand perceived inconsistencies. Scholars and historians often explain ancient local figures of speech and nuances that do not translate into English. However, all that said, that still leaves many instances, albeit not over major doctrines that I know of, that still appear to be internal inconsistencies/errors. Most COULD be understood by copyist, translation, or editorial errors down through the centuries – but wouldn’t admitting even this go against the need of man-based foundations of sola Scriptura as we spoke of them in earlier posts? (These are a representative few, all well known of course. OT: 2Sam8:4/1Chron18:4, Ezra2:3/Neh.7:8, Ezra2:15/Neh.7:20, 2Sam23:8/1Chron11:1, 1Kgs15:2/2Chron13:2, Est3:1/1Sam15:7-8, 2Kgs8:26/2Chron22:2 NT: Lk3:37-38/Jude14, Acts9:27/22:9/26:14, Matt27:6/Acts1:18, Mk11:12-17/Matt21:12&17-19, Mk5:1-2/Matt8:28)

    Understand, I’m not concerned with doctrinal impurity based on any of the above (potential/apparent) inconsistencies, and I’m comfortable the Holy Spirit is the only one capable of leading us to a proper understanding of His Word, but how do we make the case to a religious, presuppositionalist unbeliever the Bible is the only source of all Truth when anyone of them might “demonstrate” the Bible’s internal consistency problems, our Christian Source of epistemology/ontology, the same way you noted you would?

    Thanks for taking the time to continue this thread. I appreciate and am edified by it.

11. 

    Comment by Horeb's Cave on August 4, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Just read an excellent Bahnsen article called “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens”. It identifies the synergy between apologia and kergyma, and helps answer the question I had for you re: (at least philosophical minded) present day “Athenians”. Not surprisingly, Pauline evangelism is paradigmatic for several other worldview groups as well with modern day counterparts. However, would still covet your thoughts on the latest post – I know your/Choosing Hats focus is in epistemological aspects of inerrancy, but I (maybe others) would still benefit from your thoughts on Presuppositionalism and the grammatico-historical inerrancy perspective for the reasons already stated.

12. 

    Comment by RazorsKiss on August 4, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Most COULD be understood by copyist, translation, or editorial errors down through the centuries – but wouldn’t admitting even this go against the need of man-based foundations of sola Scriptura as we spoke of them in earlier posts?

    Well, I don’t think we *need* a “man-based foundation” – by definition, man cannot be a foundation for anything. It can be a useful corollary, and useful for internal/external critique, but it’s not a foundation. My internet is being wonky tonight, so I’m keeping it short – but I just want to note this; the *inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture is wrapped up in the presupposition of Scripture as our foundational authority*. Inerrancy is a given, due to the character of the Author. Perfection in copying is *not* wrapped up in that assumption. As Dr. Wallace and Dr. White argue, we have 110 pieces for our 100 piece puzzle, as the natural tendency of scribes is to keep things, not to delete them. God uses means for His ends; since He used scribes, the means of preservation was dissemination, redundancy, and their tendency to keep, not discard.

    That article of Bahnsen’s is an edited version of the appendix to “Always Ready”, a book I highly recommend, and used to teach my apologetics class.

13. 

    Comment by Horeb's Cave on August 5, 2010 at 1:29 am

    It’s not difficult to understand the simplistic Presup logic that God is incapable of error so his Word must be inerrant. Rom. 3:4/Heb. 6:18 is in every apologist’s catechism. VanTil/Bahnsen would smile. But its not the point – God’s Word in words is the issue. Your post seemed to devolve into babble after this – how does my included laundry list of (apparent) blatant/contradictory errors in Biblical verbiage equate dismissively to scribes keeping *a few extra things around*? Huh? We’re not talking an added, insignificant conjunction, jot, or tittle (though that has happened too). I wonder if you read the references. I was hoping for a serious defense. In each of the aforementioned examples, the verse pairs imply an error was created/allowed/transmitted. How can the inerrant be errant and remain beyond reproach? If not errant, why/how not? Obvioiusly we dare not say “only look at the important stuff”? I don’t want man-based foundations either, but if trust in Scripture inerrancy is undermined by internal man-derived contradictions, how is that not man-based intrusion allowed by the Author? Doesn’t this hollow, cripple a trust in sola Scriptura? One can expect the unbelievers’ argument that as our Scripture is riddled with errors, God clearly didn’t superintend His Word in words down the ages, an errant Word cannot be the source of Truth – VT presup apologetic tenets are elegant, Mr. Christian, but pointing loudly/proudly to an errant Bible as “the answer” renders your elegant argument powerless.

    The question restated is how can we Christians tenaciously defend Presuppositional Scriptural inerrancy as a fundamental tenet for all Truth for all men on the one hand, yet (apparent) human errrancy exists in many places all through the books of our Canon? How to address/eradicate this concern?

    Some would say we’re “wonky” for even having this discussion. 🙂

14. 

    Comment by RazorsKiss on August 5, 2010 at 5:27 am

    I told you which portion I was responding to, as I didn’t have much time 🙂

15. 

    Comment by Horeb's Cave on August 5, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Until then … then 🙂

16. 

    Comment by RazorsKiss on August 5, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    Understand, I’m not concerned with doctrinal impurity based on any of the above (potential/apparent) inconsistencies, and I’m comfortable the Holy Spirit is the only one capable of leading us to a proper understanding of His Word, but how do we make the case to a religious, presuppositionalist unbeliever the Bible is the only source of all Truth when anyone of them might “demonstrate” the Bible’s internal consistency problems, our Christian Source of epistemology/ontology, the same way you noted you would?

    Honestly, I’d make him demonstrate the supposed contradiction. If you make them exegete the text, you’re making him do one of two things. 1) Provide an internal critique, or 2) provide an external critique. You’re going to have to do two things – 1) demonstrate that his internal critique is unsound (and it inevitably will be), 2) or demonstrate that he is unable to make sense of “contradiction” in the first place, let alone why such a thing is wrong.

    If he tries to critique by “our standard” – he will inevitably fail to do so. Unbelievers simply can’t think the way we do. Secondly, he is purporting to know what our standards are – and will likely be incorrect, especially if he’s arguing with a presuppositionalist. If he tries to critique by *his own standard*, TAG him. He has no foundation to make the argument at all, or to object to anything, since he is ultimately a subjectivist, and thus rests on a self-defeating epistemology.

    Our task, when responding, is to engage the arguments he presents – which means we need to know how to exegete those texts, and what the answer really is. In some cases it’s textual issues; in others it’s contextual issues; in others, it’s eisegetical issues; in others, it’s anachronism. It’s also to give an answer. In my experience, most of the time they aren’t interested in your answer. However, the fact that you have one should be sufficient. An unbeliever is rarely satisfied with your explanation, no matter how reasonable – because you are wearing different colored googles. I’m sure you know all this, of course – but a lot of what I write is for the reader who gets one of these word combinations in his google search 🙂

    The key is, as I mentioned in my last big post, that there is a fundamental assumption made by the unbeliever. God doesn’t exist. If He didn’t exist, there is no guarantor of these words, and copyist errors mean that it’s just like any other document. (But they won’t bring up the fact that they don’t treat other documents, or historical accounts in the same fashion.)

    I found, as I said, Dr. White’s debate with Bart Ehrman to be very helpful in this regard – but as regards “contradictions”, Dr. White’s debate with Dan Barker was a fantastic example of turning those “contradiction lists” on their heads. I’d love to watch it with you 🙂

17. 

    Comment by Horeb's Cave on August 5, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    This was excellent. You are right – it would indeed be helpful if you could post the White/Ehrman debate (or salient excerpts). Also, it would be great to see a practical demo – “engage the argument” as you say of a few of the verse/pairs I included, typical examples of the supposed contradictions. Thanks RK. Looking forward to it

18. 

    Comment by RazorsKiss on August 5, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    I have them both. Remind me to bring them next time I stop in. I have HDMI on this laptop, so I can hook it up to the tv 🙂

19. 

    Comment by Horeb's Cave on August 16, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    No need for the White/Ehrman video after all; found the transcript of the entire debate online. Excellent. Also, from this debate I see where some your prior quotes come from now, and their context. Would still be interested to see what the White/Barker debate has to say about some of the typical verse pairs I noted above that apparently contradict each other – a little confused though on this one, haven’t listened to the debate, but the debate title has to do with Jesus story similar to other mythologies, not apparent Biblical contradictions. I’ll just trust that this topic was addressed. Still looking forward to hooking up on this soon

20. 

    Comment by RazorsKiss on August 16, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    There’s a second debate with Barker.

21. 

    Comment by pht on October 23, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    Hey, RK. Long time no see!

    Yes, it’s the PHT from mektek.

    I’m curious about your comments about G. H. Clark supposedly not truly using the bible as his presupposition… Where are you referencing this from?

    No, I’m not asking so I can argue one side of the infamous clark/van till argument. I don’t know nearly enough about that mess to get in on that. At least not yet 🙂

    Anyways, It’s nice to see you’re still kicking. Myself, I’m lazy. Since MW4 got it’s free release, theres a whole fresh crop of man-centered types to debate at the MT forums, so I’m still over there.

    I looked for the thing to register on your site and didn’t see it. But I’m notoriously blind…

    Ps. Why is monergism.com not in your “top sites” list??!! Are you sick?! 😛

22. 

    Comment by RazorsKiss on October 24, 2010 at 8:38 am

    I don’t have a “top sites” list. There isn’t a “register”, either 🙂 Sup? How’s it goin?

    The book is “Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended” by Greg Bahnsen. It’s cited in the posts I’m citing from.

23. 

    Comment by Pht on October 24, 2010 at 10:35 am

    Hmm. Now a broke bloke gets to figure out how to find money for a book…

    Things are going … well, normal for mechwarrior (new game promised, cool game trailer on youtube… than… no real news, it’s been a year. you know, the norm – red headed stepchild of the milkman’s brother in law, that’s how we get treated). And life? Pretty heavy for me for the last couple of years, but you take the good with the bad.

    Noticed you also are debating muslims… myself, I’ve been poking at the sorce documents trying to sort out some sort of basic systematic trying to answer the “are terrorists really misrepresnting the quran/hadith/sunnah – so far, it ain’t been pretty.

    You wouldn’t happen to know of a decent logically consistent systematic on islam that’s faithful to the texts and not slam full of internal contradictions (I mean, besides any contradictions that may be in the texts), would you? My search has be utterly fruitless.

    Hmm. 🙂 We should get on msn IM and compare notes, maybe. 🙂

24. 

    Comment by RazorsKiss on October 24, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Did you mean one *from* Muslims, or one addressing Islam from a Christian perspective?

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Wherry/index.htm <-- this is pretty good, for the latter. The Muslim commentaries are "Tafsir" - and I'm afraid you're going to get the same sort of mixed bag the Qur'an is from them - because they have to try to make the Qur'an somewhat cogent, and end up making hash.

The comments are closed.