The Heresy of Cornelius Van Til??? (pt 1)

[NeoConvert]

Seal,

Unless you have argument for the multiple claims made above, I'm deleting your comment. Without justification - which seems as if you purposely avoided it - it sounds merely inflammatory and ignorant. Please pick any one of the several troll'ish comments you've made and rationally support them, else I'm deleting you.

Thanks.

[NapoleonReece]

Neo, would you agree that "Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical" means "all human knowledge must be paradoxical" which means "all human knowledge is paradoxical"?

This is similar to "we know by paradox"

"our knowledge is paradox" can be attributed to VT (which is a frightening statement). It is about the nature of knowledge.

"We know by paradox" is about HOW we know. So they are different statements with many similar implications.

(continued)

[NapoleonReece]

(Part 2)

since VT says knowledge is paradoxical doesn't that make knowledge impossible?

[NeoConvert]

What I don't agree with is your equivocating the first three statements with the latter ("we know by paradox"). I think you interjected that quote into Bogrich's exchange with me. Again, it does not seem you would have inserted it had you not thought that your citations were evidence that Van Til claimed "we know by paradox."

I think such an equivocation is careless and so I will not grant it.

It posits paradox as a sort of epistemic mechanism, an idea I do not find in VT.

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

(continued here)

Sorry there was an odd sentence in the middle of the last message. I meant to say that I thought you interjected the VT quote in that exchange BECAUSE you thought all the statements equivocal... which, again, I do not grant, because, again, the "we know by paradox" is a strange sort of appeal to paradox as an epistemic mechanism... something I don't find in VT.

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

(continued here)

Now, to answer your question regarding paradox entailing impossibility of knowledge. I must say that I think it is incumbent upon you to make clear WHY anyone should suppose the entailment holds.

It is certainly not self-evident, but you (and others) have stated it as if it were an effortless inference.

Of course it could not even approach being that until YOU make clear what YOU mean by "knowledge involving paradox" and THEN confirm that this is in fact what VT means too.

[NeoConvert]

That many (including Robbins, Redbeetle, et al) shirk this responsibility & then sail on to grandiose and deplorable claims about heresy is disturbing and disheartening.

I must say I recognize that you have not yet affirmed those latter charges. But you are making the same sort of brazen, prelimenary errors which they use to "ground" their reprehensible charges.

So make clear what it is you think "knowledge involving paradox" MEANS, and your grounds for thinking VT means the same.

Thank you.

[Blogrich55]

I am an ex-vantillian. What got me to seriously question the movement, for example was a statement in Dr. Gary North's book, UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER which stated God was both 3 persons and 1 person. This is erroneous. God is 1 being Who exists as 3 separate Persons. You NEVER show anything you say you will. Van Til also taught the nonsense that we know by paradox. Yet if God knows EVERYTHING and at least some of our knowledge doesn't coincide, we can, logically, know NOTHING. Think about it!RLJ

[NeoConvert]

This is a video series about Cornelius Van Til, not Gary North.

Also, please give citation of Van Til saying "we know by paradox."

He didn't, so you can't. The statement itself doesn't even make sense.

Please don't waste my time with comments like this.

If you're interested in the topic, fine, I'm interested to discuss with you. But statements such as the above suggest you are not.

Again, please don't waste my time with such.

[brandonadams07]

"[Antinmonies] are involved in the fact that human knowledge can never be completely comprehensive knowledge. Every knowledge transaction has in it somewhere a reference point to God. Now since God is not fully comprehensible* to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradictions in ALL our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical."

-Van Til "Common Grace and the Gospel"

*Please see my comments on video 2a regarding Van Til's view of incomprehensibility

[NeoConvert]

Brandonadams,

I'm not sure why you're jumping in here. I don't mean that you "shouldn't". I only mean that if you're going to, you should say why. You seem to think the relevance of the passage you quote from CGG is self-evident. It's not.

Do you mean to equivocate the two propositions:

"we know by paradox" -Blogrich

and,

"antinomies are involved in the fact that human knowledge... (etc.)"

???

What is your purpose here?

[brandonadams07]

I think it is very obvious to everyone who has read my comment why I jumped in. And I also think that the passage I quoted is self-evident (as much as anything Van Til writes can be).

"Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical"

answers your statement:

"Also, please give citation of Van Til saying "we know by paradox." He didn't, so you can't."

If that doesn't mean the exact same thing as "we know by paradox" I don't care, it clearly means...

[brandonadams07]

it clearly means "Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical."

[NeoConvert]

You've just told me that "our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical" means that "our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical."

I'm aware of this. It's an identity statement.

I don't think it's what you meant to say though.

Is what you meant to say that "we know by paradox" clearly means that "our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical"?

If so you have a curious concept of "clearly means."

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

(continued here)

You sweepingly rid yourself of significant philosophical responsibility with such statements. One might even call it unfair (that is, on certain construals of normative standards of justification regarding interpretation).

[brandonadams07]

What I said is what I meant to say. "Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical." clearly means "Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical." And I think that is a problem.

My greatest apology if my comment was misplaced in your discussion with Blogrich.

[NeoConvert]

Then it's you that has a problem with logic, and not Van Til.

If you are telling me that it is problematic for you that "A=A," then I don't know what to say to you. And your statement above blatantly implies that you have this problem.

But I will say once more that that's not what I think you actually mean.

I think you inserted that quote from Van Til in my exchange with Blogrich because you think that that the statement in question is semantically identical to the "know by paradox" one.

[NeoConvert]

(continuing here, sorry)

I think you're not paying a great deal of intention to the way you lay out your thoughts. Read this paragraph by you again. It reads:

"Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical." clearly means "Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical." And I think that is a problem."

You offered the quote as evidence that VT teaches that "we know by paradox."

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

(continuing here, 2) When I asked you for justification for your assumption that: "Our knowledge is analogical and therefore..." means "we know by paradox" You replied that you were not claiming this. Now you've said that you're only claiming that "Our knowledge is analogical and therefore..." clearly means "Our knowledge is analogical and therefore..." Which is the same as saying that "A" clearly means "A". Which is true, but somewhat uninteresting. (see next, final)

[NeoConvert]

So when you say that

"I meant just what I said, that A = A, and it's THAT that I have a problem with"

I can only scratch my head.

Further, you don't have to apologize for jumping in to the convo. If in fact you think that

"Our knowledge is analogical and therefore..."

clearly means

"we know by paradox"

Then it seems perfectly natural that you would jump in with this supposed piece of evidence.

But then why deny that that's what you meant and insist that you only meant that A=A??

[brandonadams07]

Oh man, you totally got me (that's sarcasm, btw)

[NeoConvert]

Not only is it sarcasm, it's ONLY sarcasm (and thus absent content).

I thus consider it as much of a concession as the equally vacuous and defeat-admitting comment you posted on my other video moments ago.

Where once you hinted at constructive argument, you end in insult and sarcasm.

Well done sir.

(that's sarcasm by the way).

[elijahsraven]

Hello, NeoConvert. Just to tell you your vids got me interested in Van Til. A friend of mine happened to have a book of his - "Christian Apologetics" so I borrowed it the other day. Heavy going, I reckon, but hopefully I will understand it cos Philosophy was my best subject at university. I will give my opinion of him when I have read enough.

[NeoConvert]

Wow that's really encouraging. When I put these vids up (though I should note that I'm already very unsatisfied with them thus far, and there are more to come) I didn't even imagine that anyone would even see them. But I have gotten way more views, comments, emails and even subscribers(!) then I could have imagined.

I'm really encouraged to hear what you say.

[Blogrich55]

Neo, you are absolutely right about the knowledge by paradox comment. I meant to say knowledge by analogy. As to the mention of Dr. Gary North, it is because he is one of the chief proponents of Van Til. It was his irrational statement that started me questioning Van Til. If God has all knowledge and we do NOT possess at least some of it, we can know NOTHING and hence, skepticism is our bleak result. We as Christians Must insist on logical argumentation in order to defend the faith. RLJ

[NeoConvert]

"If God has all knowledge and we do NOT possess at least some of it, we can know NOTHING and hence, skepticism is our bleak result."

What do you MEAN by "some of it".

(Hint: you're going to find that contained in the ambiguity here is the answer to the ridiculous claims that R/R - and Clarkians in general - make against Van Til.)

What do you MEAN by "some of God's knowledge."

And have you read the text in question? Namely, Van Til's Introduction to Systematic Theology?

[Blogrich55]

No, in all honesty and condor,I have not read all of Van Til's text on this point.But I will reiterate that if God has ALL knowledge, and we do not share with Him at least SOME knowledge, we can know NOTHING and this leads to abject skepticism. Unfortunately, what I find people like you doing is reading VT's works and noting all of his truly orthodox statements while turning a blind eye to his contradictory statements. This is not good brother. I am not trying to be insulting but honest here.RLJ

[a5dr3]

Van Til can be obscure sometimes. He often criticized himself for being too easily misunderstood. there are answers to whatever objections you might have, -Just don't fall into that prideful ambitious pagan camp that calls Van Til a heretic because they don't understand, and mischaracterize his thoughts on the Trinity. (probably the most difficult and lofty doctrine in the Bible)Charges of heresy towards great men of God are only made made by heretics.

[Blogrich55]

Obscurity is often confused with profundity. While I would be the first to acknowledge that we can never fully comprehend an infinite God, I would also rigorously and scripturally maintain that, glory to God, we have true knowledge and it is NOT analogical. Where is the analogy in 2=2=4? It is NOT only the heretic who charges "great men of God" with heresy! NO Christian scholar is beyond honest examination and refutation if he is wrong! Only heretics hide behind the shield of no criticism.RLJ

[a5dr3]

You missing my point which is not about this theological debate. I'm simply saying that to disagree with Van Til on the Trinity, or whatever, is not grounds to call him a heretic. I have Catholic freinds and Arminian friends etc. who I disagree with on cardinal issues but I know they are brothers in Christ. When Red Beetle cals Van Til a heretic because of such minute disagreements that should immediately tip you off that the guy has no Christian charity and just wants to start controversy.

[NeoConvert]

Blogrich,

Have you read the text in question or haven't you? VT EXPLICITLY addresses the very issue

you're trying to press here.

While you DO indeed know that 2+2=4, you do NOT know:

A) the full/infinite system of implicated propositions related to this, nor

B) the experience of RELATING to "2+2=4" in the manner that the God's "mind" relates to it. Given that you're created, you could not bear the same RELATION to that fact, nor any other, that He does. And RELATION is part of knowledge.

[Blogrich55]

Neo, my point is simply that God can know 2=2=4 AND I can know this fact as well. Obviously God's holy mind is infinite and mines is finite. No one can possibly know all the ramifications of all the things known by God. He alone posses ALL knowledge. Yet He choses to reveal some to us and it is TRUE knowledge NOT analogical or paradoxical. David was king of Israel can be a fact known by both almighty God and me.RLJ

[NeoConvert]

Blogrich,

Why do you simply assume a dichotomy between true knowledge and analogical knowledge?

Does Van Til assume it too?

If not, you're obligated to explain your deviation from his meaning in your critique of him.

Otherwise you're caricaturing his position, which, as you know, is dishonest and unproductive.

[Blogrich55]

Please tell me, then, and correct me if I am wrong. Did VT teach we know by analogy or not? I have not read his works as extensively as you have. There is a vast difference between true knowledge and analogical knowledge. An analogy is when you make a comparison between two things. You must explain the point of similarity otherwise you won't know what the truth is or how they are similar.Does VT deny or not deny a non-analogical point of contact between man's knowledg and God's knowledge?RLJ

[NeoConvert]

Blogrich,

First you say "I am an ex-VanTillian. Then you say (essentially) "I've not read the relevant Van Til materials on the topic of our discussion."

You come into a discussion and make claims regarding the theological and philosophical integrity of a thinker, then when questioned about your claims you say "oh I've not read the materials."

[Blogrich55]

Neo, one can be an ex-vantilian through the influence of one of his disciples such as Dr. Greg Bahnsen or Dr. Gary North. One doesn't have to read VT's works to adopt his ideaology. You are wrong if you think I would not find it worth my time to deal with people who didn't truly investigate or understand ideas I hold dear that they criticize. Most people who criticize the 5 points of Calvinism would fall into this category. I just need to remind myself that patience is a virtue. Your friend, RLJ

[NeoConvert]

"One doesn't have to read Van Til's works to adopt his ideology."

Perhaps generally this is true, but if it is your particular defense here, then it begs the question.

The whole question is whether you've understood VT's "ideology" (a suspicious word, man) or not.

Your questions and accusations about matters that VT discusses ON THE VERY PAGE where the issue in question is raised call your claims to being a Van Tillian (in any meaningful sense) into question.

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

So AGAIN I will say, yes, Van Til taught that our knowledge is analogical...

But this does not entitle you to claim that this is synonymous with "our knowledge is not true."

You have argued that the latter results from the former.

But I ask you how that argument could POSSIBLY be mounted unless you understand what VT means by "analogical" (and "coincides,' etc.).

You could not.

And yet he explains it on the very PAGE where the issue in question is raised.

"Van Tillians" know this.

[NeoConvert]

To answer your admittedly uninformed question (despite the fact that your accusations themselves posture as informed)...

Van Til taught that our knowledge is analogical of God's knowledge.

What this MEANS is another question. You cannot just assume that it means what your uninformed opinions of Van Til require it to mean for their veracity.

If anyone addressed themselves that way toward a subject you took seriously, I doubt you'd find them worth your time.

[NapoleonReece]

By the way. the ontological status of the laws of logic is equal to scripture. They are a part of scripture.

The Westminster Chapter 1 section 6 says "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ..."

This is a very important issue of orthodoxy in and of itself.

[NeoConvert]

Napoleon, I don't want to get hung up on peripherals here, but when you say things like "the ontological status of the laws of logic is equal to scripture," I'm wondering if you at all conceive of how utterly in need of precising your statement is.

Your quote from the WC as 'proof' of your vague statement only further frustrates.

I abhor how snooty this will sound, but do you study much philosophy? Your statement will not stand on about any construal you give it.

Shall I enumerate these?

[NeoConvert]

For instance...

1) Do you mean equal to the "contents" of Scripture? If so, you're wrong. For that would mean that the contents/narrative of Scripture was as necessary as the logical nature of God, which would in turn mean that the salvation narrative was of necessity, which would contradict all doctrines of Grace.

So then...

2) Do you mean equal to the actual Scriptures? Like the book in front of me? Surely not. That's ridiculous. It's in an utterly diff. onto. category.

See? Vague.

[NapoleonReece]

Thank you. what I mean is that they are as necessary, perhaps more (I suppose they are more basic), as the scriptures for salvation.

For any meaning to exist in language we must have the fundamental laws of logic.

The proof text i offered is proof that Logic is necessary to understand scripture. Logic is how God thinks. Without logic scripture has no value.

Logic is basic to the idea of orthodoxy.

[NapoleonReece]

As for your question about the study of philosophy, I am just beginning to study philosophy. Forgive me if I slow things down by having to clarify so often.

[NeoConvert]

May I make a recommendation?

Go slowly, very slowly.

And don't apologize for doing so.

(Thank you nonetheless).

Which of Van Til's works have you begun with?

[NapoleonReece]

I found 3 in a used bookstore and bought them. I am looking for the others online. The one i am reading right now is "The Defense of The Faith".

I have listened to a semester class by Frame through RTS online (it is free). I have read Frames "Apologetics to the Glory of God". I have listened to many lectures by Bahnsen. I have read arguments between Rushdoony and Engilsma about Eschatology.

What would you suggest I read?

[NeoConvert]

So then your speaking of "necessary" in the sense of 'utility,' not in the sense of some modal category. That being the case, your statement is misguided as a statement about the 'ontological' status of those laws.

No one denies the necessity (in the sense of utility) of the logical laws.

Van Til says that man only HAS logical laws BECAUSE of who/what God is.

That is, man does not have logic "autonomously"... he depends on God's character for it.

This is what makes R&R's claims so crazy.

[NapoleonReece]

I understand what you are saying. I see how Van Tills main points are in agreement with those ideas, but I have seen writings and interviews where Van Til seems to claim contradictory things. He also believes the Bible has unresolvable "apparent paradoxes". that would mean that the bible cannot be seen as non-contradictory since the Bible has unresolvable "apparent paradoxes".

Does that make sense?

[NeoConvert]

"Logic is basic to the idea of orthodoxy."

Great. Logic is also basic to the idea of anything whatsoever. But I don't understand what you aim to accomplish by saying so.

It's agreed on all sides that this is so. It's everywhere in Van Til. It's noncontroversial.

[NapoleonReece]

"You cannot first claim that VT says logic is arbitrarily created, then refute passages where he says otherwise by claiming that he's purposefully contradictory since he thinks logic is arbitrary. ... This is a fundamental fallacy. It's utterly circular. And it's at the heart of the point you're trying to make."

A sweeping statement without specific quotations would be intolerable. But the claim could be true. If the texts The Clarkians point to can be refuted, then the argument becomes null.

[NeoConvert]

No you don't yet see the point here.

The "contradictory" texts Clarkians point to are only evidence for VT's contradictory thought if in fact they are intended as contradictions.

But you can't then ground the claim that they ARE intended as contradictions by saying "Van Til was perfectly okay with explicit contractions."

This is why I spend so much time on this first (false) claim about VT thinking that logic was arbitrary... cause its implication is what Clarkians use as a premise.

Circle.

[NapoleonReece]

NeoConvert/BrotherTheophilus,

Red Beetle (aka Monty Collier), John Robbins, and Gordon Clark say that Van Til says orthodox statements and then says contradictory statements in the same breath.

They make reference to specific texts. I would suggest that you respond by showing how those texts are not contradictory if they are not contradictory.

You have shown that Van Til says orthodox sounding things sometimes, but what about the sundry examples Collier, Robbins, and Clark site?

[NeoConvert]

I have shown that Van Til says orthodox sounding things sometimes?

Have I shown that in this video that you're commenting on? Or any of the others?

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Can you clarify? I don't even recall having addressed issues of orthodoxy yet.

[NapoleonReece]

I'm saying that in your next few videos you quote Van Til texts that you say demonstrate that Collier's, Robbins's and Clark's claims about Van til to be False.

I am saying that you have not proven Collier's claims to be fallacious as you say you have. You have only proven that Van Til sometimes says things that are contradictory to Collier's claims.

however, Collier claims that Van Til contradicts even himself by speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I hope that clarifies.

[NeoConvert]

Perhaps then you ran to the kitchen for a snack at the point in the video (which you're supposedly commenting on) where I explicitly state that I'm "only making the minimal claim" that given the ease with which opposing passages are found in Van Til's writings, such claims from Robinson/Redbeetle require a huge amount of qualification/support that they are nowhere given.

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

(continued here)

Futhermore, again, there is nothing explicitly "orthodox" or "unorthodox" about the claims discussed so far in the video series. There is nothing in the Creeds about the ontological status of the laws of logic. This is why I asked you to clarify... because your question suggested I was already dealing (this early in the series) with the charges of heresy. Which obviously (to anyone watching, that is) I am not.

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

(continued here)

As per your statement that my defense, thus far, is of no effect, since part of the accusation leveled by Robbins/Redbeetle is that Van Til is purposefully self-contradictory...

Anyone familiar with the basic lines of Van Til's thought (as well as the passages from which Redbeetle/Robbins so criminally wrench the quotes they work with) knows that Van Til is not contradicting himself, nor intending to.

(see next, conclusion)

[NeoConvert]

(concluding here)

But this of course requires the time, care, and patience of learning someone's point of view, something which RedBeetle/Robbins utterly depend on their audience NOT doing, in order to misinform them.

In other words...

What I'm going to present is not startling vindication of Van Til (to anyone who has actually taken the time to study Van Til).

Redbeetle/Robbins are pseudo-scholars with a vendetta, and my series is designed to show them so.

[NeoConvert]

And one last note.... and a very important one at that.

Your claim that my points are, as yet, of no effect begs the whole question at issue here. Here is why.

You cannot first claim that VT says logic is arbitrarily created, then refute passages where he says otherwise by claiming that he's purposefully contradictory since he thinks logic is arbitrary.

Do you see this?

This is a fundamental fallacy. It's utterly circular. And it's at the heart of the point you're trying to make.

[bellyoffire]

He doesn't know how to talk to his commenters. He is always trying to prove someone is a catholic by twisting what they say and "muddying" the waters of discussion.

[a5dr3]

Red Beetle represents a typical pagan mindset that unfortunately is also all too common in the Reformed world today. He wants to draw attention to himself as some sort of martyr who by his own shrewdness and holiness is the leader of some elite inner circle privy to unique truth that everyone else has for some reason overlooked. He is self-decieved and extremely immature to the point that I doubt the sincerety of his confession. It is one thing to be brought up in a camp that favors Clarks

[a5dr3]

Its 1 thing 2 be brought up in a camp that favors Clarks apologetic approach but quite another to groundlessly slur giants of the faith like Van Til and Bahnsen. Though his accusations r ludicrously false slander, I think the best way to react is just to ignore his childish nonsense. A debate is exactly what he wants to feed his narcissism and delusional martyr complex. Satan has decieved countless egoists like him into creating controversy out of thin air that eventually destroys churches.

[Blogrich55]

You are one judgmental dude! Evidently the words of Jesus about not judging others and removing the log from your own eye before trying to take the splinter out of a fellow Christian's eye fell on deaf ears in your case.RLJ

[a5dr3]

If this is supposed to be directed at me I have no idea what your talking about.

[NeoConvert]

Blogrich,

I (nor anyone else concerned with the present debate) have no patience for comments of this nature. If you have nothing substantial to contribute then refrain from commenting. I think "blocking" commentors is a sad last resort, but it's a resort nonetheless.

Thank you.

[NeoConvert]

"He wants to draw attention to himself as some sort of martyr who by his own shrewdness and holiness is..."

I wish I were as concisely perceptive as you. You've hit it on the head.

Thanks for watching and commenting.

[antipelagian]

Looking forward to more vids...good job.

[NeoConvert]

Many thanks for the comment. I will most definitely make more.

Were you able to watch parts 2a and 2b?

-theophilus

[antipelagian]

Yep.