I had a recent discussion with a blogger who called himself “Puritan Reformed” - as if Christianity is epitomized by Puritans and Reformed personnel.
From his recent replies, it seems that he is posting comments that are highly inconsistent with his persistent claims of rationality. Let me explain this in the next dozen of posts or so.
The story started with an innocent question for a “Joel”, a student from Trinity Theological College in Singapore.
Antithesis said...
Dear Joel,
What is "Clarkian" apologetics? How is it different from Van Til's?
Just want to clarify your terminology.
Yours,
Antithesis.
3/10/08 16:23
Joel Tay said...
A number of areas, which I am sure Daniel would be able to expound more clearly since he is a Clarkian reader. Hehe.
First of all, Van Tillian Apologetics is not really presuppositional in the first place. Van Til Himself admits that his arguments at its most basic level is not presuppositional at all. It's ironic that Van Til is known as the father of presuppositional apologetics.
"I do not reject the theistic proof but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as not to compromise the doctrines of Scripture. There is a natural theology that is legitimate (613); and When the proofs are thus formulated [i.e., on a Christian basis] they have absolute probative force (615). This is true, we are told, of the ontological proof, the cosmological proof, and the teleological proof (621). Dr. Bahnsen, in summarizing his teacher's position, states: Van Til did not sweepingly and indiscriminately discard theistic proofs. He affirmed quite boldly that the argument for the existence of God, when properly construed, is indeed objectively valid (622)."
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128
The Gordon Clark school of presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is based on the presupposition of scriptures being the word of God.
Van Til uses the transcendental argument alot. But even his disciple, John Frame rejects this argument. The transcendental argument is "arguing from the impossibility of the contrary". Van Til was making a basic error in logic. This is demonstrated in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8QANkYFQ_0
We should be arguing for the impossibility of the contradictory, not impossibility of the contrary as suggested by Bahnsen or by many in the Van Til school of apologetics.
Starting with the presupposition of scriptures being the Word of God, Clark explains why only the Christian worldview can make sense of the use of logic, whilst all other views lead to total agnosticism. His arguments are based on God being the divine logos (Logic), wherelse Van Til rejects this.
As Clark would translate John 1:1. in the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.
John 1:4 - In him (this Logic) was life, and the life was the light of men.
Clark argues for a univocal point of similarity with God in that man is a logical creature (made in the image of God). Van Til holds to an analogical view of revelation.
Other differences between Clark and Van Til would include Van Til's view on the Trinity being both 1 person and 3 persons. This is a heretical statement. The Nicene creed is clear that God is 1 Godhead in three persons.
Gordon Clark's Presuppositional apolgoetics is sometimes called scripturalism.
4/10/08 00:08
Antithesis said...
Dear Joel,
1) First of all, Van Tillian Apologetics is not really presuppositional in the first place.
>First off, I would like to say that I am neither Van Tillian nor Clarkian as most of us can agree that there are weaknesses in both systems of thought. Herman Hoeksema's “The Clark-Van Til Controversy” would reveal deeper issues, but I’m sure you would have read it.
In your opinion, what is the definition for “presuppositional”?
2) The Gordon Clark school of presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is based on the presupposition of scriptures being the word of God.
>Are you sure Van Till rejected this “presupposition” – “of scriptures being the word of God?” Hmmm …
3) Van Til uses the transcendental argument alot. But even his disciple, John Frame rejects this argument. The transcendental argument is "arguing from the impossibility of the contrary.
>The conceptualist’s argument for the existence of God (as described by atheist Quentin Smith) has much potential in the realm of dealing with atheologians; unfortunately, the tag (pun intended) of “transcendental argument for God” has been following this valid argument. By the way, Gordon Clark used the ontology of truth to develop an interesting “transcendental argument” in “A Christian View of Men and Things.” The late Ron Nash, a Christian philosopher heavily influenced by Clark, defends it in his lectures on Christian apologetics. Again, I’m certain you would have known this.
4) Starting with the presupposition of scriptures being the Word of God, Clark explains why only the Christian worldview can make sense of the use of logic, whilst all other views lead to total agnosticism. His arguments are based on God being the divine logos (Logic), wherelse Van Til rejects this.
> You are right that the ontology of Logic and epistemology are the salient points of disagreement between them both (IMHO).
Question: Did God create the laws of logic, and/or is He subjected to these laws (or what is your point of view on this, as my question could have been deliberately phrased)? Are the laws of logic immutable/same in all possible worlds? Your answer to these questions will delineate your stand to either side.
Also, do you believe that there are paradoxes in the Word of God?
Van Til’s disagreements with Clark were also theological in nature, but I tend to agree with Plantinga/Calvin concerning the sensus divinitatis and the noetic effects of sin on man.
5) Clark argues for a univocal point of similarity with God in that man is a logical creature (made in the image of God). Van Til holds to an analogical view of revelation.
> The entire debate concerns this relation: whether human and divine knowledge is analogical or can be univocal at some points. Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths? Seems like this is more a philosophical debate than theological error. But if we are to follow the logic of language, then it is quite difficult to defend the view that language can be expressed precisely in logical forms (for e.g., read Ernest Lepore’s text). But again, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, what are we to say of revealed propositions and their associated logical forms?
truly,
Antithesis
4/10/08 10:14
PuritanReformed said...
Joel:
I have read a few of Clark's books, but not as many as you seem to have. As for Van Till, I have nearly fainted from reading one of his books since it is too philosophical, and as such yes, it does give credence to the notion that he is not a true presuppositionalist.
Antithesis:
I will just like to comment on a few items here, and Joel can do the rest.
>Question: Did God create the laws of logic, and/or is He subjected to these laws (or what is your point of view on this, as my question could have been deliberately phrased)?
C. Matthew McMahon of A Puritan's Mind in his doctoral thesis, published as a book The Two Wills of God, did discuss this very issue in his first few chapters. Logic ontologically flows from God, but it epistemologically precedes God. So God is independent of logic ontologically, but is dependent on logic epistemologically. Thus, you cannot have one without the other.
>Are the laws of logic immutable/same in all possible worlds?
The laws of logic precede from God and are independent of the material world, and therefore this question is nonsensical, because you would not know otherwise even if they were different, for they are as transcendent and unchangeable as God.
>Also, do you believe that there are paradoxes in the Word of God?
Define "paradoxes". If by paradox, you are talking about apparent contradictions which may be resolved logically, then I agree. If by paradoxes, you mean apparent contradictions which may not be resolved logically, then I disagree.
>Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths?
Question: Is God sovereign over language? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally?
4/10/08 11:38
Joel Tay said...
1) In your opinion, what is the definition for “presuppositional”?
====The bible alone is the axiom. Axioms (or presuppositions) cannot be proven; if they could, they would not be presuppositions. Van Til believes that there are proofs for the existences and truth of his Word. This makes him post-suppositional.
2) >Are you sure Van Til rejected this “presupposition” – “of scriptures being the word of God?”
==== scriptures is not the axiomatic starting point for Van Til. Clark would understand sola scriptura to mean “The Bible alone is the Word of God”.
3) >The conceptualist’s argument for the existence of God (as described by atheist Quentin Smith) has much potential in the realm of dealing with atheologians; unfortunately, the tag (pun intended) of “transcendental argument for God” has been following this valid argument. By the way, Gordon Clark used the ontology of truth to develop an interesting “transcendental argument” in “A Christian View of Men and Things.” The late Ron Nash, a Christian philosopher heavily influenced by Clark, defends it in his lectures on Christian apologetics. Again, I’m certain you would have known this.
==== I’m referring to Van Til’s argument which "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. This is a basic mistake in Logic, as the video link in my earlier comment s indicate. We should be arguing from the impossibility of the contradictory – not contrary.
4) Question: Did God create the laws of logic, and/or is He subjected to these laws (or what is your point of view on this, as my question could have been deliberately phrased)? Are the laws of logic immutable/same in all possible worlds? Your answer to these questions will delineate your stand to either side.
====God is the Logic. It is his very nature. The laws of logic are the way God thinks, and these laws are embedded in Scripture.
There is only one system of logic. If there were more then one form of logic, then we cannot make sense of scripture since that would depend on which form of logic we use. Besides, the one claiming multiple forms of logic expects the listener to be using the same form of logic as him. Thirdly, as far as formal logic goes, there is only one form. An apple either "is a fruit" or "is not a fruit". If there is another other form of logic, knowledge of the anything becomes impossible and one is left with agnostism.
Gordon Clark's stand on logic is based on God being the logic(LOGOS) in John 1:1. And verse 4 tells us that this LOGOS is the light of man. We are made in the image of God in being able to understand Logic.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Man can use the same logic as God because God himself says so. Again, the presupposition is scriptures. Argument from Logic is built from scripture
Logic cannot exist before God for that would give Logic pre-eminence over God. Either did Logic exist after God, for that would make God illogical before that. God has to be the divine Logic Himself.
5) Also, do you believe that there are paradoxes in the Word of God?
====Rhetorical paradoxes yes. Logical paradoxes no.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=76
5) The entire debate concerns this relation: whether human and divine knowledge is analogical or can be univocal at some points. Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths? Seems like this is more a philosophical debate than theological error. But if we are to follow the logic of language, then it is quite difficult to defend the view that language can be expressed precisely in logical forms (for e.g., read Ernest Lepore’s text). But again, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, what are we to say of revealed propositions and their associated logical forms?
====Logic is univocal. As John 1:1 and John 1:4 indicates, this divine Logic/wisdom is the light of man. Here, scriptures show that logic is a univocal point of agreement between man and God. If our knowledge does not coincide with God in at least one propositional point, then we cannot understand any truth. Those from the Van Til school as well as the Neo-orthodox, would say that there is no univocal truth between man and God, and that any understanding between man and God is at best analogical. However, any theological-propositional-statement that says we cannot understand any theological-propositional-statement, is self-defeating and proven false. Secondly, verse 4 implies that when man is being made in the image of God, it refers not to the physical, but to the intellect. As Clark points out,
“The image of God cannot refer to the physical body, for God is Spirit. Animals have bodies, but they are not in God’s image. Man’s mind, therefore, his rationality, is God’s image as Ephesians 4:24 and Col 3:10 indicate... It ought to be obvious that a blank mind cannot be an image of God. God is a God of knowledge and truth. His image must reflect that fact. This ability to reason set us apart from animals. Univocal Logic allows God to reveal propositional truth to man and be understood in the process. This also means that those who reject God are without excuse for rejecting him. To reject rationality as the image of God would mean that theology as “knowledge of God” becomes impossible resulting in complete agnosticism. This strikes at the heart of the gospel since Jesus Himself taught theology. It is interesting to note that verse 14 tells us that this Divine-Logic became flesh in the person of Jesus and that grace and truth comes through Jesus.
Logic (LOGOS) is an attribute of God Himself. God is truth. (Ps 31:5) – The Logic-incarnate (John 14:6). He is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) and thus we can deduce that God cannot speak forth propositions that are logical contradictions. Since man is made in the image of God, and the Logos is the light of man, when we turn away from the truth in rebellion against God, we are illogical. The bible speaks of non-believers as being illogical – ALOGOS (Jud 110 and 2 Pet 2:12) When Jesus told the woman in John 4:21, “Woman, believe me”, He was speaking about believing in His Words (propositional truth). When Jesus in John 5:46 compared believing Moses with believing Jesus, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me for he wrote of me, But if you do not believe in his writings, how will you believe in my words” (John 5:46-47). Jesus, the logic-LOGOS is referring to belief in what He says. It is not possible to separate belief in God with belief in the truth of His words in scripture (logical-propositions). To disbelief LOGOS-Jesus’ words as recorded in scripture, is to disbelieve in LOGOS-Jesus. To say that scriptures is not inerrant, casts doubt on our faith in the LOGOS.
On Language, do note that God made Adam with full capability to speak – even with the ability to understand what death is before death had even occurred on earth. Language therefore is God’s of revealing propositional truth to man. So yes. Language therefore is able to express truth concerning a transcendent God and its associated truths. As mentioned earlier, logic is univocal between man and God. Formal logic is an example of how language is translated into logical forms. As you pointed out, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, we cannot understand revealed propositions and their associated logical forms. In other words, rejecting logic being univocal in God and man, results in complete agnosticism. That is why a rejection of Clarkian apologetics is ultimately self-defeating.
Joel
4/10/08 14:17
Antithesis said...
Dear Joel,
1) The bible alone is the axiom. Axioms (or presuppositions) cannot be proven; if they could, they would not be presuppositions. Van Til believes that there are proofs for the existences and truth of his Word. This makes him post-suppositional.
>OK. Your definition of “presuppositional” = Using axioms derived from the Bible.
Am I interpreting you correctly?
So, you are using these axioms in “proving” certain truths; am I interpreting you correctly again? In which case, how would you proceed? What I mean is, what kind of “proof” are you trying to furnish? In fact, what is an acceptable “proof” for you? What qualifies as a “proof” for you?
Do you have an example of such a “proof” for whatever you are trying to prove i.e. in your apologetics endeavors?
What is the epistemological basis for your “proof?” Are you using the classical foundationalist/coherentist theories for justification (or what)? Deductive/inductive/abductive or what?
2) Clark would understand sola scriptura to mean “The Bible alone is the Word of God”.
>So Van Til believes otherwise???
3) I wrote, “The conceptualist’s argument for the existence of God (as described by atheist Quentin Smith) has much potential in the realm of dealing with atheologians; unfortunately, the tag (pun intended) of “transcendental argument for God” has been following this valid argument. By the way, Gordon Clark used the ontology of truth to develop an interesting “transcendental argument” in “A Christian View of Men and Things.” The late Ron Nash, a Christian philosopher heavily influenced by Clark, defends it in his lectures on Christian apologetics. Again, I’m certain you would have known this.”
You wrote, “I’m referring to Van Til’s argument which "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. This is a basic mistake in Logic, as the video link in my earlier comments indicate. We should be arguing from the impossibility of the contradictory – not contrary.”
>Er … the conceptualist’s argument is similar to the TAG you are reiterating here. Try googling for “conceptualist’s argument Quentin Smith?” But I’m sure you would have done this.
My point is, both Van Til and Clark used the TAG. By the way, if you would research into this a little more, the TAG is logically valid (which points us back to my previous question – what qualifies as a “proof” for you?). There’s more to Aristotelian logic than this; Google is a useful tool.
4) God is the Logic. It is his very nature. The laws of logic are the way God thinks, and these laws are embedded in Scripture.
There is only one system of logic. If there were more then one form of logic, then we cannot make sense of scripture since that would depend on which form of logic we use. Besides, the one claiming multiple forms of logic expects the listener to be using the same form of logic as him. Thirdly, as far as formal logic goes, there is only one form. An apple either "is a fruit" or "is not a fruit". If there is another other form of logic, knowledge of the anything becomes impossible and one is left with agnostism.
>Absolutely. This IMHO is the most important thing we can glean from Clark’s work (if nothing else). Glad you got that. But again, many other Christian apologists/philosophers had defended this. Of course, Clark popularized this in the controversies of the OPC.
5) Gordon Clark's stand on logic is based on God being the logic (LOGOS) in John 1:1. And verse 4 tells us that this LOGOS is the light of man. We are made in the image of God in being able to understand Logic.
>Not many will agree that the Greek word (strong’s number 3056) means strictly “logic.” Have you done your own lexical study?
By the way, this “logos” as God’s “logic” is nothing new in the history of thought. Heard of Heraclitean Logos? I’m sure you do.
6) Man can use the same logic as God because God himself says so. Again, the presupposition is scriptures. Argument from Logic is built from scripture
Logic cannot exist before God for that would give Logic pre-eminence over God. Either did Logic exist after God, for that would make God illogical before that. God has to be the divine Logic Himself.
>To put it succinctly, just like moral laws (read Plato’s Euthyphro and the associated dilemma) and logical concepts, all these exist in the Mind of God. God didn’t create the moral laws or logic, neither is He subjected to them. They exist immutably and eternally as part of His Being. This concept forms the bases of the conceptualist argument. Thanks for “proving” that for me.
5) Also, do you believe that there are paradoxes in the Word of God? Rhetorical paradoxes yes. Logical paradoxes no.
>That makes you a Clarkian. Congratulations! In all honesty, I repudiate the presence of logical paradoxes in Scripture as well (pat ourselves on our backs?).
I wrote, “The entire debate concerns this relation: whether human and divine knowledge is analogical or can be univocal at some points. Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths? Seems like this is more a philosophical debate than theological error. But if we are to follow the logic of language, then it is quite difficult to defend the view that language can be expressed precisely in logical forms (for e.g., read Ernest Lepore’s text). But again, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, what are we to say of revealed propositions and their associated logical forms?”
6a) Logic is univocal.
>Agreed.
6b) However, any theological-propositional-statement that says we cannot understand any theological-propositional-statement, is self-defeating and proven false.
>Yes, yes! So is God 100% knowable to Man? Can any theologian dead or alive ever get Systematic Theology 100% correct?
6c) Secondly, verse 4 implies that when man is being made in the image of God, it refers not to the physical, but to the intellect.
>Are our emotions/affections functions of the intellect? Are our minds likewise tainted by the Fall?
6d) Thus we can deduce that God cannot speak forth propositions that are logical contradictions … To disbelief LOGOS-Jesus’ words as recorded in scripture, is to disbelieve in LOGOS-Jesus. To say that scriptures is not inerrant, casts doubt on our faith in the LOGOS.
>You wrote a little while ago that, “Gordon Clark's stand on logic is based on God being the logic (LOGOS) in John 1:1.” Do you mean “logic” as the laws of logic (LOGOS)?
In this comment, you mentioned LOGOS as “Jesus’ words” and Jesus Himself as the divine Logos.
Can you clarify your understanding/usage of the word “logos” in your comments here? Does Logos refer to the laws of logic, Jesus, words of Jesus, or all of the above? In which case in John 1:1-4, how do you understand Logos here to mean “laws of logic/logic?”
6e) Language therefore is able to express truth concerning a transcendent God and its associated truths. As mentioned earlier, logic is univocal between man and God. Formal logic is an example of how language is translated into logical forms. As you pointed out, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, we cannot understand revealed propositions and their associated logical forms.
>You do not seem to realize that philosophers of language, logicians and linguists all agree that language cannot be accurately/precisely (at least in some cases) expressed as symbolic logic. If you had (and I believe you must have) studied basic “formal” logic of language – as you had so aptly mentioned – you must be acquainted with simple property predicate logic. Lepore, for example, taught his students how best to symbolize the logical form of various statements, but this is at best inadequate when we encounter certain sentence structures (read carefully, I’m not saying that language CANNOT express propositional truths).
If the logical forms of language cannot be adequately expressed (as in the usage of formal logic), how are we to say that we have 100% epistemic certainty concerning the logical forms of such language?
With that in mind, I asked, “Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths?”
Perhaps a better question would be, “Are we able to understand the logical forms of such linguistic expressions of propositional truths in all its entirety?”
We know that the Reformed position is that, “Scripture is perspicacious”; but does that mean we are able to know every truth/logical form/proposition contained in the Bible with 100% epistemic certainty? See where I’m driving at now?
Yours truly,
Antithesis
4/10/08 18:57
Antithesis said...
"Van Til’s argument which "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”" - Joel
Oh yes, before I forget – no contemporary philosopher who uses the TAG or the conceptualist argument "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. Copi’s text (shown in that “enlightening” Youtube video) is for first year students; the folks I know don’t make that mistake. And surely if you would pick up a paper on this, you would find more than the square of opposition.
Kind regards,
antithesis
4/10/08 19:11
Joel left the discussion as of now. But the Puritan Reformed fellow thinks he has more to offer …
From his recent replies, it seems that he is posting comments that are highly inconsistent with his persistent claims of rationality. Let me explain this in the next dozen of posts or so.
The story started with an innocent question for a “Joel”, a student from Trinity Theological College in Singapore.
Antithesis said...
Dear Joel,
What is "Clarkian" apologetics? How is it different from Van Til's?
Just want to clarify your terminology.
Yours,
Antithesis.
3/10/08 16:23
Joel Tay said...
A number of areas, which I am sure Daniel would be able to expound more clearly since he is a Clarkian reader. Hehe.
First of all, Van Tillian Apologetics is not really presuppositional in the first place. Van Til Himself admits that his arguments at its most basic level is not presuppositional at all. It's ironic that Van Til is known as the father of presuppositional apologetics.
"I do not reject the theistic proof but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as not to compromise the doctrines of Scripture. There is a natural theology that is legitimate (613); and When the proofs are thus formulated [i.e., on a Christian basis] they have absolute probative force (615). This is true, we are told, of the ontological proof, the cosmological proof, and the teleological proof (621). Dr. Bahnsen, in summarizing his teacher's position, states: Van Til did not sweepingly and indiscriminately discard theistic proofs. He affirmed quite boldly that the argument for the existence of God, when properly construed, is indeed objectively valid (622)."
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128
The Gordon Clark school of presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is based on the presupposition of scriptures being the word of God.
Van Til uses the transcendental argument alot. But even his disciple, John Frame rejects this argument. The transcendental argument is "arguing from the impossibility of the contrary". Van Til was making a basic error in logic. This is demonstrated in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8QANkYFQ_0
We should be arguing for the impossibility of the contradictory, not impossibility of the contrary as suggested by Bahnsen or by many in the Van Til school of apologetics.
Starting with the presupposition of scriptures being the Word of God, Clark explains why only the Christian worldview can make sense of the use of logic, whilst all other views lead to total agnosticism. His arguments are based on God being the divine logos (Logic), wherelse Van Til rejects this.
As Clark would translate John 1:1. in the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.
John 1:4 - In him (this Logic) was life, and the life was the light of men.
Clark argues for a univocal point of similarity with God in that man is a logical creature (made in the image of God). Van Til holds to an analogical view of revelation.
Other differences between Clark and Van Til would include Van Til's view on the Trinity being both 1 person and 3 persons. This is a heretical statement. The Nicene creed is clear that God is 1 Godhead in three persons.
Gordon Clark's Presuppositional apolgoetics is sometimes called scripturalism.
4/10/08 00:08
Antithesis said...
Dear Joel,
1) First of all, Van Tillian Apologetics is not really presuppositional in the first place.
>First off, I would like to say that I am neither Van Tillian nor Clarkian as most of us can agree that there are weaknesses in both systems of thought. Herman Hoeksema's “The Clark-Van Til Controversy” would reveal deeper issues, but I’m sure you would have read it.
In your opinion, what is the definition for “presuppositional”?
2) The Gordon Clark school of presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is based on the presupposition of scriptures being the word of God.
>Are you sure Van Till rejected this “presupposition” – “of scriptures being the word of God?” Hmmm …
3) Van Til uses the transcendental argument alot. But even his disciple, John Frame rejects this argument. The transcendental argument is "arguing from the impossibility of the contrary.
>The conceptualist’s argument for the existence of God (as described by atheist Quentin Smith) has much potential in the realm of dealing with atheologians; unfortunately, the tag (pun intended) of “transcendental argument for God” has been following this valid argument. By the way, Gordon Clark used the ontology of truth to develop an interesting “transcendental argument” in “A Christian View of Men and Things.” The late Ron Nash, a Christian philosopher heavily influenced by Clark, defends it in his lectures on Christian apologetics. Again, I’m certain you would have known this.
4) Starting with the presupposition of scriptures being the Word of God, Clark explains why only the Christian worldview can make sense of the use of logic, whilst all other views lead to total agnosticism. His arguments are based on God being the divine logos (Logic), wherelse Van Til rejects this.
> You are right that the ontology of Logic and epistemology are the salient points of disagreement between them both (IMHO).
Question: Did God create the laws of logic, and/or is He subjected to these laws (or what is your point of view on this, as my question could have been deliberately phrased)? Are the laws of logic immutable/same in all possible worlds? Your answer to these questions will delineate your stand to either side.
Also, do you believe that there are paradoxes in the Word of God?
Van Til’s disagreements with Clark were also theological in nature, but I tend to agree with Plantinga/Calvin concerning the sensus divinitatis and the noetic effects of sin on man.
5) Clark argues for a univocal point of similarity with God in that man is a logical creature (made in the image of God). Van Til holds to an analogical view of revelation.
> The entire debate concerns this relation: whether human and divine knowledge is analogical or can be univocal at some points. Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths? Seems like this is more a philosophical debate than theological error. But if we are to follow the logic of language, then it is quite difficult to defend the view that language can be expressed precisely in logical forms (for e.g., read Ernest Lepore’s text). But again, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, what are we to say of revealed propositions and their associated logical forms?
truly,
Antithesis
4/10/08 10:14
PuritanReformed said...
Joel:
I have read a few of Clark's books, but not as many as you seem to have. As for Van Till, I have nearly fainted from reading one of his books since it is too philosophical, and as such yes, it does give credence to the notion that he is not a true presuppositionalist.
Antithesis:
I will just like to comment on a few items here, and Joel can do the rest.
>Question: Did God create the laws of logic, and/or is He subjected to these laws (or what is your point of view on this, as my question could have been deliberately phrased)?
C. Matthew McMahon of A Puritan's Mind in his doctoral thesis, published as a book The Two Wills of God, did discuss this very issue in his first few chapters. Logic ontologically flows from God, but it epistemologically precedes God. So God is independent of logic ontologically, but is dependent on logic epistemologically. Thus, you cannot have one without the other.
>Are the laws of logic immutable/same in all possible worlds?
The laws of logic precede from God and are independent of the material world, and therefore this question is nonsensical, because you would not know otherwise even if they were different, for they are as transcendent and unchangeable as God.
>Also, do you believe that there are paradoxes in the Word of God?
Define "paradoxes". If by paradox, you are talking about apparent contradictions which may be resolved logically, then I agree. If by paradoxes, you mean apparent contradictions which may not be resolved logically, then I disagree.
>Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths?
Question: Is God sovereign over language? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally?
4/10/08 11:38
Joel Tay said...
1) In your opinion, what is the definition for “presuppositional”?
====The bible alone is the axiom. Axioms (or presuppositions) cannot be proven; if they could, they would not be presuppositions. Van Til believes that there are proofs for the existences and truth of his Word. This makes him post-suppositional.
2) >Are you sure Van Til rejected this “presupposition” – “of scriptures being the word of God?”
==== scriptures is not the axiomatic starting point for Van Til. Clark would understand sola scriptura to mean “The Bible alone is the Word of God”.
3) >The conceptualist’s argument for the existence of God (as described by atheist Quentin Smith) has much potential in the realm of dealing with atheologians; unfortunately, the tag (pun intended) of “transcendental argument for God” has been following this valid argument. By the way, Gordon Clark used the ontology of truth to develop an interesting “transcendental argument” in “A Christian View of Men and Things.” The late Ron Nash, a Christian philosopher heavily influenced by Clark, defends it in his lectures on Christian apologetics. Again, I’m certain you would have known this.
==== I’m referring to Van Til’s argument which "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. This is a basic mistake in Logic, as the video link in my earlier comment s indicate. We should be arguing from the impossibility of the contradictory – not contrary.
4) Question: Did God create the laws of logic, and/or is He subjected to these laws (or what is your point of view on this, as my question could have been deliberately phrased)? Are the laws of logic immutable/same in all possible worlds? Your answer to these questions will delineate your stand to either side.
====God is the Logic. It is his very nature. The laws of logic are the way God thinks, and these laws are embedded in Scripture.
There is only one system of logic. If there were more then one form of logic, then we cannot make sense of scripture since that would depend on which form of logic we use. Besides, the one claiming multiple forms of logic expects the listener to be using the same form of logic as him. Thirdly, as far as formal logic goes, there is only one form. An apple either "is a fruit" or "is not a fruit". If there is another other form of logic, knowledge of the anything becomes impossible and one is left with agnostism.
Gordon Clark's stand on logic is based on God being the logic(LOGOS) in John 1:1. And verse 4 tells us that this LOGOS is the light of man. We are made in the image of God in being able to understand Logic.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Man can use the same logic as God because God himself says so. Again, the presupposition is scriptures. Argument from Logic is built from scripture
Logic cannot exist before God for that would give Logic pre-eminence over God. Either did Logic exist after God, for that would make God illogical before that. God has to be the divine Logic Himself.
5) Also, do you believe that there are paradoxes in the Word of God?
====Rhetorical paradoxes yes. Logical paradoxes no.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=76
5) The entire debate concerns this relation: whether human and divine knowledge is analogical or can be univocal at some points. Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths? Seems like this is more a philosophical debate than theological error. But if we are to follow the logic of language, then it is quite difficult to defend the view that language can be expressed precisely in logical forms (for e.g., read Ernest Lepore’s text). But again, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, what are we to say of revealed propositions and their associated logical forms?
====Logic is univocal. As John 1:1 and John 1:4 indicates, this divine Logic/wisdom is the light of man. Here, scriptures show that logic is a univocal point of agreement between man and God. If our knowledge does not coincide with God in at least one propositional point, then we cannot understand any truth. Those from the Van Til school as well as the Neo-orthodox, would say that there is no univocal truth between man and God, and that any understanding between man and God is at best analogical. However, any theological-propositional-statement that says we cannot understand any theological-propositional-statement, is self-defeating and proven false. Secondly, verse 4 implies that when man is being made in the image of God, it refers not to the physical, but to the intellect. As Clark points out,
“The image of God cannot refer to the physical body, for God is Spirit. Animals have bodies, but they are not in God’s image. Man’s mind, therefore, his rationality, is God’s image as Ephesians 4:24 and Col 3:10 indicate... It ought to be obvious that a blank mind cannot be an image of God. God is a God of knowledge and truth. His image must reflect that fact. This ability to reason set us apart from animals. Univocal Logic allows God to reveal propositional truth to man and be understood in the process. This also means that those who reject God are without excuse for rejecting him. To reject rationality as the image of God would mean that theology as “knowledge of God” becomes impossible resulting in complete agnosticism. This strikes at the heart of the gospel since Jesus Himself taught theology. It is interesting to note that verse 14 tells us that this Divine-Logic became flesh in the person of Jesus and that grace and truth comes through Jesus.
Logic (LOGOS) is an attribute of God Himself. God is truth. (Ps 31:5) – The Logic-incarnate (John 14:6). He is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) and thus we can deduce that God cannot speak forth propositions that are logical contradictions. Since man is made in the image of God, and the Logos is the light of man, when we turn away from the truth in rebellion against God, we are illogical. The bible speaks of non-believers as being illogical – ALOGOS (Jud 110 and 2 Pet 2:12) When Jesus told the woman in John 4:21, “Woman, believe me”, He was speaking about believing in His Words (propositional truth). When Jesus in John 5:46 compared believing Moses with believing Jesus, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me for he wrote of me, But if you do not believe in his writings, how will you believe in my words” (John 5:46-47). Jesus, the logic-LOGOS is referring to belief in what He says. It is not possible to separate belief in God with belief in the truth of His words in scripture (logical-propositions). To disbelief LOGOS-Jesus’ words as recorded in scripture, is to disbelieve in LOGOS-Jesus. To say that scriptures is not inerrant, casts doubt on our faith in the LOGOS.
On Language, do note that God made Adam with full capability to speak – even with the ability to understand what death is before death had even occurred on earth. Language therefore is God’s of revealing propositional truth to man. So yes. Language therefore is able to express truth concerning a transcendent God and its associated truths. As mentioned earlier, logic is univocal between man and God. Formal logic is an example of how language is translated into logical forms. As you pointed out, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, we cannot understand revealed propositions and their associated logical forms. In other words, rejecting logic being univocal in God and man, results in complete agnosticism. That is why a rejection of Clarkian apologetics is ultimately self-defeating.
Joel
4/10/08 14:17
Antithesis said...
Dear Joel,
1) The bible alone is the axiom. Axioms (or presuppositions) cannot be proven; if they could, they would not be presuppositions. Van Til believes that there are proofs for the existences and truth of his Word. This makes him post-suppositional.
>OK. Your definition of “presuppositional” = Using axioms derived from the Bible.
Am I interpreting you correctly?
So, you are using these axioms in “proving” certain truths; am I interpreting you correctly again? In which case, how would you proceed? What I mean is, what kind of “proof” are you trying to furnish? In fact, what is an acceptable “proof” for you? What qualifies as a “proof” for you?
Do you have an example of such a “proof” for whatever you are trying to prove i.e. in your apologetics endeavors?
What is the epistemological basis for your “proof?” Are you using the classical foundationalist/coherentist theories for justification (or what)? Deductive/inductive/abductive or what?
2) Clark would understand sola scriptura to mean “The Bible alone is the Word of God”.
>So Van Til believes otherwise???
3) I wrote, “The conceptualist’s argument for the existence of God (as described by atheist Quentin Smith) has much potential in the realm of dealing with atheologians; unfortunately, the tag (pun intended) of “transcendental argument for God” has been following this valid argument. By the way, Gordon Clark used the ontology of truth to develop an interesting “transcendental argument” in “A Christian View of Men and Things.” The late Ron Nash, a Christian philosopher heavily influenced by Clark, defends it in his lectures on Christian apologetics. Again, I’m certain you would have known this.”
You wrote, “I’m referring to Van Til’s argument which "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. This is a basic mistake in Logic, as the video link in my earlier comments indicate. We should be arguing from the impossibility of the contradictory – not contrary.”
>Er … the conceptualist’s argument is similar to the TAG you are reiterating here. Try googling for “conceptualist’s argument Quentin Smith?” But I’m sure you would have done this.
My point is, both Van Til and Clark used the TAG. By the way, if you would research into this a little more, the TAG is logically valid (which points us back to my previous question – what qualifies as a “proof” for you?). There’s more to Aristotelian logic than this; Google is a useful tool.
4) God is the Logic. It is his very nature. The laws of logic are the way God thinks, and these laws are embedded in Scripture.
There is only one system of logic. If there were more then one form of logic, then we cannot make sense of scripture since that would depend on which form of logic we use. Besides, the one claiming multiple forms of logic expects the listener to be using the same form of logic as him. Thirdly, as far as formal logic goes, there is only one form. An apple either "is a fruit" or "is not a fruit". If there is another other form of logic, knowledge of the anything becomes impossible and one is left with agnostism.
>Absolutely. This IMHO is the most important thing we can glean from Clark’s work (if nothing else). Glad you got that. But again, many other Christian apologists/philosophers had defended this. Of course, Clark popularized this in the controversies of the OPC.
5) Gordon Clark's stand on logic is based on God being the logic (LOGOS) in John 1:1. And verse 4 tells us that this LOGOS is the light of man. We are made in the image of God in being able to understand Logic.
>Not many will agree that the Greek word (strong’s number 3056) means strictly “logic.” Have you done your own lexical study?
By the way, this “logos” as God’s “logic” is nothing new in the history of thought. Heard of Heraclitean Logos? I’m sure you do.
6) Man can use the same logic as God because God himself says so. Again, the presupposition is scriptures. Argument from Logic is built from scripture
Logic cannot exist before God for that would give Logic pre-eminence over God. Either did Logic exist after God, for that would make God illogical before that. God has to be the divine Logic Himself.
>To put it succinctly, just like moral laws (read Plato’s Euthyphro and the associated dilemma) and logical concepts, all these exist in the Mind of God. God didn’t create the moral laws or logic, neither is He subjected to them. They exist immutably and eternally as part of His Being. This concept forms the bases of the conceptualist argument. Thanks for “proving” that for me.
5) Also, do you believe that there are paradoxes in the Word of God? Rhetorical paradoxes yes. Logical paradoxes no.
>That makes you a Clarkian. Congratulations! In all honesty, I repudiate the presence of logical paradoxes in Scripture as well (pat ourselves on our backs?).
I wrote, “The entire debate concerns this relation: whether human and divine knowledge is analogical or can be univocal at some points. Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths? Seems like this is more a philosophical debate than theological error. But if we are to follow the logic of language, then it is quite difficult to defend the view that language can be expressed precisely in logical forms (for e.g., read Ernest Lepore’s text). But again, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, what are we to say of revealed propositions and their associated logical forms?”
6a) Logic is univocal.
>Agreed.
6b) However, any theological-propositional-statement that says we cannot understand any theological-propositional-statement, is self-defeating and proven false.
>Yes, yes! So is God 100% knowable to Man? Can any theologian dead or alive ever get Systematic Theology 100% correct?
6c) Secondly, verse 4 implies that when man is being made in the image of God, it refers not to the physical, but to the intellect.
>Are our emotions/affections functions of the intellect? Are our minds likewise tainted by the Fall?
6d) Thus we can deduce that God cannot speak forth propositions that are logical contradictions … To disbelief LOGOS-Jesus’ words as recorded in scripture, is to disbelieve in LOGOS-Jesus. To say that scriptures is not inerrant, casts doubt on our faith in the LOGOS.
>You wrote a little while ago that, “Gordon Clark's stand on logic is based on God being the logic (LOGOS) in John 1:1.” Do you mean “logic” as the laws of logic (LOGOS)?
In this comment, you mentioned LOGOS as “Jesus’ words” and Jesus Himself as the divine Logos.
Can you clarify your understanding/usage of the word “logos” in your comments here? Does Logos refer to the laws of logic, Jesus, words of Jesus, or all of the above? In which case in John 1:1-4, how do you understand Logos here to mean “laws of logic/logic?”
6e) Language therefore is able to express truth concerning a transcendent God and its associated truths. As mentioned earlier, logic is univocal between man and God. Formal logic is an example of how language is translated into logical forms. As you pointed out, if language cannot express logic (of propositions) precisely, we cannot understand revealed propositions and their associated logical forms.
>You do not seem to realize that philosophers of language, logicians and linguists all agree that language cannot be accurately/precisely (at least in some cases) expressed as symbolic logic. If you had (and I believe you must have) studied basic “formal” logic of language – as you had so aptly mentioned – you must be acquainted with simple property predicate logic. Lepore, for example, taught his students how best to symbolize the logical form of various statements, but this is at best inadequate when we encounter certain sentence structures (read carefully, I’m not saying that language CANNOT express propositional truths).
If the logical forms of language cannot be adequately expressed (as in the usage of formal logic), how are we to say that we have 100% epistemic certainty concerning the logical forms of such language?
With that in mind, I asked, “Is propositional human language capable of expressing truths concerning a transcendent God and associated truths?”
Perhaps a better question would be, “Are we able to understand the logical forms of such linguistic expressions of propositional truths in all its entirety?”
We know that the Reformed position is that, “Scripture is perspicacious”; but does that mean we are able to know every truth/logical form/proposition contained in the Bible with 100% epistemic certainty? See where I’m driving at now?
Yours truly,
Antithesis
4/10/08 18:57
Antithesis said...
"Van Til’s argument which "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”" - Joel
Oh yes, before I forget – no contemporary philosopher who uses the TAG or the conceptualist argument "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. Copi’s text (shown in that “enlightening” Youtube video) is for first year students; the folks I know don’t make that mistake. And surely if you would pick up a paper on this, you would find more than the square of opposition.
Kind regards,
antithesis
4/10/08 19:11
Joel left the discussion as of now. But the Puritan Reformed fellow thinks he has more to offer …
No comments:
Post a Comment