FAQ - Rationalism,
Paradoxes, Mysteries, Apparent Contradictions, Cornelius Van Til, harmonizing
Scripture etc.
Q.
1. “What is Rationalism?”
“[Rationalism is] an exaltation of man’s sinful
reason to a position where it becomes the sole criterion of truth, and partly
because it is, by its very nature, anti-biblical. A man cannot be faithful to
the Scriptures and be a rationalist at the same time. He is one or the other.
In fact, rationalism is unbelief; faithfulness to the Scriptures is saving
faith.” (Herman Hanko, “For Thy Truth’s
Sake”)
“Rationalism wants to exalt reason above the
Scriptures.” (Rev. Herman Hoeksema, “A
Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 58)
############################################
Q. 2. “Isn’t the attempt to harmonize Scripture
with itself or the attempt to solve seemingly paradoxical problems in the Bible
‘rationalism’?”
If the attempt to find, by a deeper study of the
Scripture, the solution of paradoxes is deemed "rationalism" (i.e.
heretical) then it certainly follows that all theology, and especially all
dogmatics, is rationalistic... For theology and dogmatics proceed from the
assumption that the truth revealed in the Bible can be formulated into a
logical system.
No theologian has ever proceeded from the
assumption that we must not try to harmonize Scripture or try to solve
problems. Dogmatics is a system of truth elicited from Scripture. And exegesis
always applies the rule of the "regula Scripturae" (Analogy of
Scripture) which means that throughout the Bible there runs a consistent line
of thought in the light of which the darker and more difficult passages must be
interpreted.
Who does not know that Reformed theologians have
always interpreted those passages of Scriptures, which at first sight seem to
be in favor of the Arminian view, in the light of the current teaching of Holy
Writ that salvation is of the Lord, that grace is sovereign, that the atonement
is particular, and that man is not free to do good? (Rev. Herman Hoeksema)
[Rationalism
is the rejection of] divinely inspired teaching on the basis that it is
inconsistent with what unaided human reason already knows. If
the rejection of Prof. Murray’s formulation of the gospel offer proceeds on the
basis that it contradicts what Scripture explicitly teaches, that rejection is
free from the charge of rationalism and must be accepted as Biblical truth … [The]
rejection of Prof. Murray’s formulation proceeds, not on the basis that it
contradicts the light of nature, but that it contradicts the light of
Scripture. (Matthew Winzer, “Murray on the Free Offer:
A Review”)
############################################
Q. 3. “Is not your whole rejection of ‘common grace’
based on inferences drawn from the eternal decree and eternal predestinating
counsel of God? Are you simply denying ‘common grace’ and the ‘well-meant
offer’ merely because it ‘contradicts’ the decree of reprobation?”
No. God’s revealed truth of predestination is not
the only doctrine that militates against common grace. Against God’s unity (Deut. 6:4), common grace
teaches that God has two loves, two mercies, two lovingkindnesses, etc. Against
God’s immutability (Mal. 3:6),
common grace teaches that God loves the reprobate in time and then hates them
in eternity. Against the divine righteousness,
which is so great that God cannot “look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13), common grace
says that God loves those who are completely evil (Rom. 3:10-18). In short,
common grace postulates a temporary, limited, changeable, unrighteous love of
God (outside of Jesus Christ!) for the reprobate. But the Scriptures teach us
that God loves Himself, and that He loves His elect church (Eph. 5:25) with a
particular (Rom. 9:18), eternal (Jer. 31:3), infinite (Eph. 3:17-19),
unchangeable (Ps. 136) love in Jesus Christ. (Rev. Angus Stewart, “Common Grace”)
############################################
Q. 4. “Are you simply trying to comprehend things
within your fallen human brain, putting reason on the foreground?”
We are not engaged in trying to harmonise one thing
with another before our rational understanding. We are simply discussing the
ordinary meaning of the words which are used by those who speak of a [common
grace, and a] general offer of grace. When we use words, then those words have
meaning. We cannot simply inject into them a meaning as it pleases us or as it
may best suit us.” (Rev. Herman Hoeksema,
“A Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 2)
[The] rejection of Prof. Murray’s formulation
proceeds, not on the basis that it contradicts the light of nature, but that it
contradicts the light of Scripture. Moreover, the Scriptural references which
Prof. Murray has alleged in favour of his formulation, do not teach what he has
endeavoured so earnestly to extract from them. (Matthew Winzer, “Murray on the Free Offer: A Review”)
############################################
Q. 5. “In our study of Scripture, are there not
apparent contradictions in the Bible, and that in such cases we simply accept both
sides of the contradiction?”
The Bible is the revelation of God to us, adapted
to our understanding. God, who created our logical mind, also adapted His own
revelation to that mind. Hence, there surely cannot be contradictions in the
Word of God. There are no contradictions in God. How could there be
contradictions in His revelation to us? (Rev.
Herman Hoeksema)
##########################################
Q. 6. “Are there not statements in Scripture that
at first blush appear to contradict each other?”
Granted. But it has always been sound Reformed
method of exegesis to make a serious attempt to solve the difficulties by
explaining those passages that appear to contradict the current teaching of the
Bible, the analogia Scripturae, in the light of the latter. Van Til, himself,
even emphasized that this method must be applied in such cases. Only, for some
reason, he quite arbitrarily [wanted] to stop at a certain point. And his
objection to [our] method can only be that [we] insist that this method must be
applied throughout, to the very end.
And when [we] apply this thoroughly Reformed method
to the interpretation of Holy Writ, [we] come to the conclusion that the theory
of common grace is a myth, an invention of man’s mind, not a truth of revelation.
But suppose now that after all our efforts there
should still be apparent contradictions in the Bible. What then? Must we then
not accept both sides of the contradiction? I have already shown that this is
impossible. No, but in that case:
(a) We adhere to the current teaching of Scripture,
and
(b) We humbly confess that as yet we have not
sufficient light to solve all the difficulties, and continue our search. (Rev. Herman Hoeksema)
##########################################
Q. 7. “Are there not mysteries in Scripture?”
“We
have indeed the calling to contemplate and study the Word of our God until we
understand it. And although we gladly concede that there are mysteries, things
which for our finite understanding are never to be fathomed, because our God is
unfathomable, yet we maintain that in Scripture we have a revelation of God
which is adapted to our thinking and our understanding, and which we indeed can
understand. We maintain that this Scripture does not teach and cannot teach
that black is also white, that God will not bestow but also will bestow grace
on the same persons, that He offers what He does not will to bestow. Scripture
is not both Reformed and Arminian. (Rev.
Herman Hoeksema, “Believers and Their Seed: Children in the Covenant,” [RFPA,
1997], p. 130)
##########################################
Q. 8. “Are you not reasoning too
much out of the hidden counsel of God? Wouldn't it be better if you would
consider that the revealed things are for us?”
[We] do not in any way occupy [ourselves] with hidden things. Certainly,
[we] do busy [ourselves] very much with sovereign election. But [we] do that
according to the example of the Scriptures, which speak throughout of this
election and reprobation. Surely [you] would not want to call the truth of
election and reprobation a hidden thing? Well then, neither must [it be said]
that [we] occupy [ourselves] with hidden things. To a certain degree it is for
us a hidden matter as to *who* are elect and *who* are reprobate. But that is
exactly a matter with which [we] never busy [ourselves]. From [our] standpoint
that is not at all necessary. [We] preach the gospel to [our] entire audience,
according to the Word of God, and as long as [we] do that, (preaching it
according to the Word of God), [we] do not come in conflict with the doctrine
of election and reprobation.
That a Reformed person can preach
a particular gospel in general is perfectly clear to [us]. There is no mystery
or contradiction involved in that. The mystery arises when someone wants to
bring a general gospel (according to its content) in harmony with the truth of
election. That is impossible. But [we] never occupy [ourselves] with hidden
things. [We] do not visit fortune tellers, and [we] certainly do not take note
of the barking of dogs or the cry of birds. (Rev.
Herman Hoeksema, "A Power of God Unto Salvation," p. 62)
##########################################
Q. 9. “Is not the relationship
between the general offer of the gospel and the doctrine of election and
reprobation a ‘mystery’? Something ‘incomprehensible’ to our finite mind, and
therefore cannot be understood or harmonised?”
[There] is no mystery whatever in the teaching that God causes His gospel to be
preached to all without distinction in order to save the elect and to harden
the others. The calling through the gospel makes the reprobate wicked
responsible, places the depravity of his sinful heart in the clearest light and
increases his judgment. That is God’s intent. The
result answers completely to God’s intent. And God carries out His counsel. He
still maintains man’s responsibility and the justice of God. What is so very
incomprehensible here? This is the clear teaching of the Scriptures . . .
.
No, the incomprehensible, the nonsense of the presentation is created when you
try to bind the Arminian teaching of a general offer to the Reformed teaching
of particular grace. Then you say: God desires to save only the elect; Christ
brought atonement only for them; God can give His grace and work conversion
only in them; but yet God offers His grace well-meaningly, with the intent of
saving them, to all mankind; and if this grace is not accepted the result does
not answer to the intent!
This is not a mystery. It is
nonsense. It is so nonsensical, because the latter is not true, while the
former is true; the latter is not in harmony with Scripture, the former is: the
latter is not Reformed, the former is thoroughly Reformed. You want to join the
lie to the truth. Therefore you end up with a so-called mystery. (Rev. Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto
Salvation,” pp. 76-77)
##########################################
Q. 10. “How do you respond to
Murray and Stonehouse’s argument that there is no contradiction between a
desire to save only the elect and a desire to save all men because, after all,
the one pertains to His decretive
will and the other pertains to His revealed
will, and it would only be a contradiction if we would attribute these two
desires to the same will (either decretive or revealed)?”
In the introduction to [their
pamphlet entitled The Free Offer of the
Gospel, Murray and Stonehouse write the following]:
It
would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer
of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation
of all men.
It
should have been apparent that the aforesaid committee, in predicating such
‘desire’ of God, was not dealing with the decretive will of God; it was dealing
with the free offer of the gospel to all without distinction and that surely
respects, not the decretive will of God, but the revealed will. There is not
ground for the supposition that the expression was intended to refer to God’s
decretive will.
It
must be admitted that if the expression were intended to apply to the decretive
will of God, then there would be, at least, implicit contradiction. For to say
that God desires the salvation of the reprobate and apply the former to the
same thing as the latter, namely, the decretive will, would be contradiction;
it would amount to averring of the same thing, viewed from the same aspect, God
wills and God does not will.
Again,
the expression, ‘God desires,’ in the formula that crystallises the crux of the
question, is intended to notify not at all the ‘seeming’ attitude of God, but a
real attitude, a real disposition of loving-kindness inherent in the free offer
to all, in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed
result to be achieved by compliance with the overture proffered and the
invitation given.
Let
us restate, in other words, the real matter in dispute. It is, whether in the
Reformed doctrine of redemption, the desire and pleasure of God concerns only
the salvation of the elect whom He has chosen in Christ from the foundation of
the world, or, whether it also refers to the nonelect whom God has made the
objects of His everlasting displeasure and wrath.
There are three important
facts to notice from the above quotations.
Firstly, the Professors have posited in God a sensible and reasonable
will concerning His precepts for the salvation of all men. If any should object
that the Professors have not used the words, ‘sensible and reasonable,’ then
that which they have written is meaningless. Furthermore, if there is a
sensible and reasonable desire in God which respects His preceptive [i.e.
‘revealed’] will that all men shall be saved, such desire is internal to the
mind of God. It would be contrary to Scripture and to reason to suppose that
there is a desire in God which is without sensibility and reason, and which
does not belong to His internal mind. The Professors have put the matter beyond
doubt in the following quotation from their study:
The
expression ‘God desires’ in the formula that crystallises the crux of the
question, is intended to notify not at all the ‘seeming’ attitude of God but a
real attitude, a real disposition of loving-kindness inherent in the free offer
to all, in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed result to be achieved by
compliance with the overture proffered and the invitation given.
Secondly, if there is a sensible and reasonable desire in God for the
salvation of all men, and that desire is internal to His mind, then unless
there are two minds in God, that desire must belong to the same mind which
executes His eternal decrees.
Thirdly, the Professors have attempted to avoid the obvious
contradiction which must exist if the desire of God for the salvation of all
men has reference to God’s decretive will, by referring that desire to His
preceptive [or ‘revealed’] will. In other words, the Professors believe that by
confining the desire of God for the salvation of all men to His preceptive
will, it does not involve a contradiction with God’s decretive will by which He
purposes to save only some. Now as we have clearly pointed out, a desire in God
for the salvation of all men must belong to the same mind which executes His
decrees. The Professors, therefore, have failed to avoid the internal
contradiction in God. Rather, they have by positing a desire in God’s
preceptive will, created it.
If a duplicity is implied,
it matters not, in this case, if it is held that there are two minds in God or
only one. If it is proposed that God desires the salvation of all men, and at
the same time purposes to save only some, there must be a contradiction in the Divine Mind.
The Professors have not
comprehended within their theology the fact that a desire in God, whether it be
made to belong to His decretive will or His preceptive [revealed] will, is a
state or act of the Divine Mind. If
it is held that the Divine Mind is rational, then all the desires of God must
be consistent with His purposes and decrees. The non-fulfilment of desire in
God implies that there is an internal contradiction or want [lack] of blessedness
in the ever blessed God. The Scripture teaches that God will fulfil all His
good pleasure. God in the human sense does not desire or want of anything, but
decrees all things according to the pleasure of His own will.
The obscurity and
confusion of the modern modified Calvinist system, in the understanding of
many, stems from the fact that the idea persists that the desire of God, which
He is said to have for the salvation of all men is external to Himself, because it is posited in His preceptive [revealed]
will. The basic error, in this respect, is simply the positing in the mind of
God a desire concerning His precepts [i.e. that God’s commands are His desire]. God’s preceptive will [i.e. His
commands] which is given for man’s rule of duty, is in no way declarative of
what God desires or what He intends
to do. To say that God desires the salvation of those whom He does not purpose
to save, by granting them the gifts of repentance and faith, is to make God
insincere and a monster in the worst sense. The free offer of Christ in the
gospel, which God’s ministers are commanded to preach unto all men, is not a
declaration of whom He desires to save, any more than it is one concerning the
particular individuals whom He purposes to redeem.
(Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia, “Universalism
and the Reformed Churches: A Defense of Calvin’s Calvinism”)
##########################################
Q. 11. “Why can’t saving faith accept mutually
exclusive propositions that are contrary to all logic? Does not the word of God
demands us to accept such?”
We maintain that this is impossible even for saving
faith and that Scripture never makes such a demand on faith. The truth may far
transcend our comprehension, but it never conflicts with the fundamental laws
of logic. If it did, it could not be apprehended. A truth that is contrary to
our understanding would elude our grasp. (Rev.
Herman Hoeksema, “God’s Goodness Always Particular” [RFPA 2015], p. 23)
##########################################
Q. 12. “What is the ‘archetypal/ectypal distinction in Reformed theology?”
The
word archetype means “pattern in an ultimate sense.”
Simply
put, archetypal knowledge is theology as God knows it. The term refers to God’s infinite, perfect
self-knowledge. It is knowledge that the triune God has of Himself apart from
any creature. This knowledge of God is the ultimate pattern of all knowledge.
The word ectype means “copy or reflection of the archetype or ultimate
pattern.”21
Ectypal knowledge is theology as we know and do it. It is the
knowledge that we humans have of God. More specifically, ectypal knowledge is
the knowledge that the believer and the church have of God by
means of revelation. (Joshua Engelsma,
PRTJ, vol. 45, no. 2 [April, 2012].)
##########################################
Q. 13. “How is archetypal
knowledge and ectypal knowledge distinguished? Is there is a difference?”
[There] is a difference between how God
knows [archetypal knowledge] and how we know [ectypal knowledge]. Archetypal
knowledge is intuitive; ectypal knowledge is derived. This understanding also
acknowledges that there is a difference in quantity between archetypal and
ectypal knowledge. Archetypal knowledge is infinite and boundless; ectypal
knowledge is finite and limited. (Joshua
Engelsma, Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April,
2012].)
For our part, we believe that the
distinction ought to be made between the quantity
of our knowledge and God’s knowledge and the way in which we know and God
knows. The quantity of God’s knowledge is infinite while ours is finite. God
knows intuitively while our knowledge is derived. But the quality of the
knowledge we have by revelation is not different from God’s knowledge. What we
know from God’s Word is true and is not in any way contradictory. (Joshua Engelsma, Protestant
Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April, 2012], pp. 93-94.)
##########################################
Q. 14. “Does not the archetype/ectype
distinction teach that there is a complete break between the content of God’s
knowledge and knowledge possible to man?”
This
is not the proper understanding of this distinction. The proper understanding
of this distinction can be summed up rather briefly: quantitative difference.
The knowledge that God has is distinguished from the knowledge that we have as
regards quantity. God is infinite, and so is His knowledge of Himself
and all things. Our knowledge, by comparison, is finite. God’s knowledge is
intuitive. Ours is acquired. There is now and forever shall be in heaven an
infinite gulf between the quantity of our knowledge and God’s.
But
we must not assume that there is a qualitative difference between God’s
knowledge and the knowledge that we have of things. The knowledge that we have
is received by revelation. God revealed Himself
to us in His Word. That Word is the source of all the believer’s knowledge. And
that Word is infallible, sufficient, and reliable. God reveals to us in His
Word who He really is and what He has sovereignly decreed. We may not know
everything there is to know about God, but the knowledge God has given to us in
Scripture is identical to the knowledge that God Himself has. If this is not
our confession, then we have absolutely no assurance that what we know is the
truth. We may think something is true, we may hope that it is true, but we have
no certainty that it is actually true. We cannot know whether our knowledge of
something is the same as God’s knowledge. (Joshua
Engelsma, Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April,
2012].)
##########################################
Q. 15. “So you’re saying that
though our knowledge is ‘quantitatively’ different from God’s, yet it is
‘qualitatively’ the same as His? Does not Deuteronomy 29:29 contradict that?”
The
fact that our knowledge is qualitatively the same as God’s is in harmony
with Deuteronomy 29:29, the chief passage on which the archetypal/ectypal
distinction is based. There we read, “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed
belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of
this law.” This passage is not saying that the ectype is different from the
archetype. Rather, Moses is telling the people not to pry into the things that
God has not revealed but to observe all that God has revealed in His law.
Applied to the call of the gospel, this verse tells us that we are not to pry
into the hearts of men to see whether they are elect or not, but we are to
confine ourselves to what God has revealed, namely, that all who repent and
believe will be saved. And Scripture is clear that only the elect truly repent
and believe. There is no antimony or apparent contradiction taught in this
passage. (Joshua Engelsma, Protestant Reformed Theological
Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April, 2012], p. 80.)
##########################################
Q. 16. “Is not our
knowledge of something only ‘analogical’ to Gods? Is not our knowledge only
‘analogically’ true?”
The claim that our
knowledge is only analogical to God’s is erroneous. The analogical idea
essentially means that the believer can have no truth at all. The best that we
can hope for is an analogy to the truth, but the truth will forever escape us.
In this case the truth is that God desires the salvation only of the elect. But
all we can know is that God desires the salvation of all men who come under the
preaching of the gospel. The truth is not something we can know and ought not
be something we are concerned with. Gordon Clark writes, “If God knows all
truths and knows the correct meaning of every proposition, and if no
proposition means to man what it means to God, so that God’s knowledge and
man’s knowledge do not coincide at any single point, it follows by rigorous
necessity that man can have no truth at all.”43
We confess that the truth
must be the same for us as it is for God. We do not know everything that God
knows, nor do we know in the same way that God knows, but what we do know to be
true is the same as God knows it. That is to say, the quantity of our knowledge
and the way in which we know is different. It must be, for God is the infinite
God and we are but finite creatures. But the quality of the knowledge that we
do have is identical with that which God has. What we know about a certain
proposition is identical to what God knows about that same proposition.
Revelation requires that this be true. God’s revelation to us is a revelation
that is reliable and accurate. He reveals Himself to us as He actually is. He
reveals in His Word to us the truth about the way He works. Faith requires that
this be true as well.
[Robert L. Reymond
writes,] “Accordingly, since the Scriptures require that saving faith be
grounded in true knowledge (see Rom. 10:13-14), the church must vigorously
oppose any linguistic or revelational theory, however well-intended, that would
take from men and women the only ground of their knowledge of God and,
accordingly, their only hope of salvation.”44
--------------------
FOOTNOTES:
43 Quoted in Reymond, New Systematic Theology, 99.
44 Reymond, New Systematic Theology, 102.
(Source: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April 2012], p. 86)
-----------------
[Claiming
that our knowledge is only ‘analogically’ true] leaves the door open for contradictions
and paradoxes in our knowledge. What we know is essentially different from the
way things actually are. We are convinced that this undermines the very
existence of systematic theology. We are also convinced that this is perilous
for the faith and salvation of the child of God. If we are unsure of the
truthfulness of our knowledge, our faith and salvation are unsure.
(Source: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April 2012], p. 94)
##########################################
Q. 17. “Scripture portrays
God as having a nose, eyes, ears, passions, and even portrays God as repenting.
Does this not imply that the reflection we see in the Bible is distorted? The
image we have of God in the Bible is not who God is as He is. It is who God is
as He has revealed Himself to our weak finite capacity.
The problem isn't the
mirror. The problem is us. The mirror is accommodated to us and our problems
which include sinfulness, creatureliness, and finiteness. God is reflected and
revealed in the Scriptures but that revelation is not who God is in His essence
since He is essentially unknowable.”
Your question concerns
what theology calls “anthropomorphism.”
God reveals Himself to us in Scripture in language and forms reflecting
human characteristics. As spirit, God
has no body or bodily parts; but He states that He has eyes, a hand, etc. As
modes of revelation, therefore, they are not to be taken literally, but make
known that to God belong the realities that these body parts perform in human
life: seeing; acting, etc.
That these characteristics
of God are figurative does not, however, imply that they are unreal. God’s are the realities, of which the human
parts and activities are the figures. God made man with the bodily parts and
activities to manifest the realities in Himself. God’s are the real eyes, hand,
etc. The realities are the divine, spiritual seeing, acting, etc.
To view the matter from
another angle, although the ascription of bodily parts to God is not to be
taken literally, physically, but as revelation to humans concerning who and
what God is, the revelation is true, although God far exceeds the revelation.
Revelation can be true, although not complete. God far exceeds the revelation
of Himself in Scripture, but He is not different from the revelation. There may
be a faint shadowing of this in our own lives with each other. You, or even my
wife, knows me truly, if I am an unhypocritical man; but neither of you knows
me fully, not even as fully as I know myself.
I would contend that the
revelation of God is essentially who God truly is. He is not different from His
revelation of Himself. But He is more than the revelation.
When we see God face to
face in Jesus, we will not exclaim, “How different thou art from your
revelation in Scripture.” But we will say, “I know you. I always knew you. I
knew you truly. You are exactly the one whom I knew in my life on earth. But
greater and more glorious.”
Revelation is true, not
false.
And by it, we do know God.
By His own gracious act of revelation, He is essentially knowable.
Hear Bavinck:
“... In order to convey
the knowledge of him to his creatures, God accommodates himself to their powers
of comprehension. Our knowledge of God is always only analogical in character
and, therefore, only a finite image, a faint likeness and creaturely impression
of the perfect knowledge that God has of himself. Finally, our knowledge of God
is nevertheless true, pure, and trustworthy because it is founded in God’s own
self-consciousness, its archetype, and his self-revelation in the cosmos.”
Read all that Bavinck has
to say on the subject in the first part of his Reformed Dogmatics. (Prof.
David J. Engelsma)
##########################################
Q. 18. “Herman Bavinck
makes an interesting point when he says that our knowledge of God is ‘always
only analogical in character and, therefore, only a finite image, a faint
likeness and creaturely impression of the perfect knowledge that God has of
himself.’ I recall that Cornelius Van Til also discussed extensively in his
writings the concept of ‘analogical’ knowledge. Is Bavinck there teaching the
same concept as Van Til? Or is there a different understanding of ‘analogical’
knowledge between these two men?”
With regard to your
question about analogical knowledge in Bavinck, a careful, full reading of
Bavinck on the subject will make plain that he had something different in mind
from Van Til. Bavinck insisted that our
knowledge of God by revelation is true, that we know God truly from His revelation. Bavinck was concerned to point out that God
reveals Himself to us in language and by figures that draw upon comparisons
with the makeup of humans. Van Til,
although he may have supposed that he was grounded in Bavinck's theology, meant
by analogy that there is no oneness of divine revelation and of human's
knowledge. This denies the truth and
reality of our knowledge of God. Our
knowledge is always mere similarity.
For Bavinck, as I read
him, our knowledge of God by divine revelation is true knowledge, making known
to us what and who God really is. God's
making Himself known is (genuine) revelation of Himself.
This is reality by means
of revelation that uses anthropomorphisms, likenesses of God and His actions to
human features and actions.
The fundamental expression
of this genuine revelation, though taking form in anthropomorphism, is
Jesus. He is genuine revelation of God,
not only in spite of His humanity, but exactly by means of His humanity. (Prof. David J. Engelsma)
##########################################
Q. 19. “What did Cornelius
Van Til mean by ‘analogical knowledge’?”
Van Til developed his
concept of “analogical knowledge,” meaning that all human knowledge can only
ever be a representation of God’s knowledge. In this view, there is no defined
point of contact between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge; there is never an
identity between God’s knowledge of Himself and our knowledge of Him. Hence,
propositions cannot have the same meaning for God as they do for man, with the
result that propositional knowledge of God ultimately becomes impossible. (Philip Rainey, “Calvinism Cast Out: The
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Free Offer of the Gospel”)
##########################################
Q. 20. “We may not and
cannot apply the laws of logic to the Being of God.”
[This] position is
self-contradictory: [one] has to use logic in order to disparage logic. [The
modern notion] is that God’s attributes cannot be reduced to the level of human
logic ... Yet it is only on the basis of logic that [someone] can say [we are]
wrong. Obviously, we cannot both be right at the same time; that would be a
denial of the law of non-contradiction. [This ideology allows a person] to deny
logic only when it suits him. (Philip
Rainey, “Calvinism Cast Out: The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and
the Free Offer of the Gospel”)
##########################################
Q. 21. “The truth about
God always eludes our logical categories and it is the part of a true Christian
humility to let the doctrine of a love of God for all men stand in tension with
the truth of sovereign reprobation.”
This position represents a
denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. According to [free offer men], [both
double predestination and the well-meant offer] are taught in Scripture. But
since Scripture is the revealed will of God, if it contains contradictions,
then it is unclear, and if unclear, it cannot be sufficient. (Philip Rainey, “Calvinism Cast Out: The
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Free Offer of the Gospel”)
##########################################
Q. 22. “Surely we have no
right to say that God cannot both love and hate a man at one and the same time.
After all, God’s mind is infinite, and therefore He is perfectly capable of
loving and hating the same person. Such a concept is simply one of the many
mysteries we must humbly accept.”
That is simply a
contradiction. Such a view is a denial of the attribute of God’s simplicity.
The doctrine of God’s simplicity means that God is one and undivided in His
Being. Although we speak of and distinguish individual attributes of God, it is
nevertheless true that his attributes are all one in Him. Hence, God’s
simplicity means God always acts consistently with His nature; God is always in
harmony with Himself; there is no tension in the Being of God. The very thought
is utter blasphemy. He is the one, perfectly blessed, incomparable God, unto
whom be glory forever. Even in human relationships do we not regard consistency
as a virtue? That we do is a reflection of the eternal and self-existent
Jehovah, who as the I AM THAT I AM simply is.
Jehovah God is never anything other than what He is. Hence, to will opposite
things … is impossible for God, as Job declares, “He is in one mind, and who
can turn him?” (Job 23:13). God’s will is God and so His will is one and
undivided; you obviously cannot say this about one who wills both A and not A
at the same time: God is not the great schizophrenic! (Philip Rainey, “Calvinism Cast Out: The Reformed Presbyterian Church
of Ireland and the Free Offer of the Gospel”)
##########################################
Q.
23. “A ‘paradox’ (or antinomy) is two truths which are both
unmistakably taught in the Word of God but which also cannot possibly be reconciled
before the bar of human reason.”
[From the definition of paradox proposed thus, it
immediately shows itself to be] inherently problematical, for the one who so
defines the term is suggesting by implication that either he knows by means of
an omniscience that is not normally in human possession that no one is capable of reconciling the
truths in question or he has somehow universally polled everyone who has ever
lived, is living now, and will live in the future and has discovered that not
one has been able, is able, or will be able to reconcile the truths. But it
goes without saying that neither of these conditions is or can be true.
Therefore, the very assertion that there are paradoxes, so defined, in
Scripture is seriously flawed by the terms of the definition itself. There is
no way to know if such a phenomenon is present in Scripture. Merely because any
number of scholars have failed to reconcile to their satisfaction two given
truths of Scripture is no proof that the truths cannot be harmonized. And if just one scholar claims to have
reconciled the truths to his or her own satisfaction, this ipso facto
renders the definition both gratuitous and suspect. (Dr. Robert L. Reymond, “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian
Faith” [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville; USA], p. 105).
##########################################
Q. 24. “But paradoxes are only apparent contradictions
and not actual or real ones!”
[This attempted solution to the problem] seem to be
oblivious to the fact that, if actually non-contradictory truths can appear as
contradictories and if no amount of study or reflection can remove the
contradiction, there is no available means to distinguish between this
“apparent” contradiction and a real contradiction. Since both would appear to
the human existent in precisely the same form and since neither will yield up
its contradiction to study and reflection, how does the human existent know for
certain that he is “embracing with passion” only a seeming contradiction and
not a real contradiction? (Dr. Robert L. Reymond, “A New Systematic Theology
of the Christian Faith” [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville; USA], p. 105-7).
##########################################
Q.
25. “But even so-and-so (e.g. Berkhof, Murray, Van Til, Spurgeon, etc.) himself
has stated that not even he can reconcile these apparently contradictory truths
… and he is an eminent theologian. Is that fact itself not enough to prove that
not even we are able to solve this, and neither is anyone else for that
matter?”
Merely because any number of scholars have failed
to reconcile to their satisfaction two given truths of Scripture is no proof
that the truths cannot be harmonized. And if just one scholar claims to have
reconciled the truths to his or her own satisfaction, this ipso facto renders the definition both gratuitous and suspect (Dr. Robert L. Reymond, “A New Systematic
Theology of the Christian Faith” [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville; USA], p.
105).
##########################################
Q.
26. “Are you trying to make the gospel consistent?”
[This] begs the question: “Is the pure gospel inconsistent then?” (“British Reformed Journal,” issue 46 [Winter 2007], p. 26).
##########################################
Q. 27. “Is it not the height of impiety to require a non-contradictory basis for the offer or preaching of the
gospel?”
We do not believe it is a sign of piety to cry “mystery!”
when contradictions are evident in one’s theology, especially when the
contradiction is of one’s own making. (Rev.
Christopher J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
##########################################
Q. 28. “We simply have to accept paradox, tension
and antinomy in Scripture. To do otherwise is impious and is to impose man’s
reason upon the Scriptures”
Antinomy and tension are more problematic. You can
take paradox in a good way, however, though not the way it’s intended. Paradox
can be very powerful rhetorically and linguistically. Take the following as an
example of a rhetorical paradox: “By honour and dishonour, by evil report and
good report: as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as
dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet
alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet
possessing all things” (II Cor. 6:8-10).
Then there is the paradox whereby there is a ‘contradiction.’—and
when there is a contradiction, the minister or theologian has various things
which he can do. He could say, “Whoops … Since God is true and the Scripture is
entirely clear (for the perspicuity of Scripture is involved here), and God is
one, and true, and His word is ‘truth’ in the very beginning … I’ve made a
mistake. Where did I go wrong?” But then the other way is to say, “We have a
paradox! Isn’t that wonderful! We’re so humble … We can’t understand what God
says in His word … And look at those proud people who think they can explain
the Bible in a way that it makes sense … But we’re so humble because we don’t
know what the Bible says.” And then you ask them, “How many paradoxes are there
in the world?” Van Til said “Everything is paradoxical!” And how do you know if
something is a ‘real’ paradox or only
a ‘seeming’ paradox?
The will of God is that with ‘seemingly’ contradictory things in the Bible, the church wrestles
with them, prays with them, studies them and thinks about them and comes to
understand them rightly.
With the idea that we must not try to understand
and solve seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible, somebody could say
that about every doctrine …
E.g. Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I”
(John 14:28) See? One passage says He’s God, and another one says He’s ‘not’ God … Isn’t it wonderful? We have a
paradox! Why don’t we just worship God, because Jesus ‘is’ God, because He is equal with the Father (John 5:18; 10:30),
and yet He’s ‘not’ God … Wonderful!
Worship God in the mystery of it all! Don’t try to understand these things.”
Someone could also say, “This passage says that the
Spirit is God, and the Father is God, and the Son is God (because they have
divine attributes and works, and worship is attributed to them), and then other
passages say that God is one … Therefore God is three ‘and’ God is one … and I
don’t know how it all makes sense, so I’m just going worship God and simply say
that He is both three and one …”
But you’re ‘supposed’
to put it together. And you’re supposed to do it with the will of God. It’s not
pride to do that, but its wisdom and grace.
If you hold two things which are actually
contradictory, you’re in trouble in your mind. It’s not good, psychologically,
for people to hold contradictory things. One of the very things the world says
is, “There is no truth; you can hold contradictory things,” and that’s what
makes people confused.
Paul says “I will not have you ignorant, brethren”
(I Thess. 4:13. Cf. Acts 13:38—“I want you to ‘know’ …”), and sound doctrine does that. Rhetorical paradoxes, by
all means, but it’s a false humility to insist on believing contradictory
things.
(Rev.
Angus Stewart—audio lecture, “God’s Saving Will in the New Testament,” Q&A
Session)
No comments:
Post a Comment