Everything I have read from Van Til, Bahnsen, and Butler would indicate that Van Til did not view logic as created. If God is a rational God, then logic must be eternal, uncreated. I am positive Bahnsen and Butler both were explicit in their view that logic was part of God’s nature. It would be odd for such a basic difference to exist between these students and their teacher and there be no mention of it. Additionally, Frame also teaches that logic is part of the divine nature.

I think it is a very serious mistake to draw to hard of a distinction between God’s being and God’s function. God’s function is always grounded in the nature of His being. He does as He pleases. God’s plan is in back of all that God does.

Steve M did not provide a full quote, so I will:

In contrast to this, Christianity holds that God existed alone before any time existence was brought forth. He existed as the self-conscious and self-consistent being. The law of contradiction, therefore, as we know it, is but the expression on a created level of the internal coherence of God’s nature. Christians should therefore never appeal to the law of contradiction as something that, as such, determines what can or cannot be true. Parmenides serves as a warning of what happens to history if the law of contradiction is in this fashion made the ultimate standard of appeal in human thought.

Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

Scott,

I found your objection to my argument recently.
I think that it is sufficient to point out that the creator must be greater than the creatures.
If you are a Christian, then you will agree that you are a creature that was created by the creator, namely, God.
Creation cannot be greater than the creator that created the creation.
Now, suppose that the laws of logic are God’s thoughts and we can use them.
Then we can use the laws of logic, and we can use our creator’s thoughts.
Suppose that you create some things and they can use your thoughts.
It would be ridiculous that such material things can use your thoughts.
Therefore, it is not the case either that the laws of logic are God’s thoughts or that we are created by God.

P.S.
Gottlob Frege says that the laws of logic are independent of any mind, and are immaterial and universal. But he needs no theistic account of logic because the laws of logic are not God’s thoughts.

Greg

No problem. I understand. I lose track of things too. I posted on your website because I saw that you posted part of our conversation. I thought it was only fair to post the rest. Hope you don’t mind. I thought it was an interesting exchange. A bit long maybe, but on an interesting subject.

Still no reply!

Greg

No reply.

Greg

ZZZZZZZZZZZ…..

Greg
I realize that attempting to defend Van Til’s view of logic can be very difficult and time consuming.

I understand.

Look here:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/van-til-the-theologian/

You did not properly credit Dr. Van Til with those quotes even though you did use quotations marks. You set them forward as if being YOUR understanding of what I myself had said. From the pen of Van Til, since I KNOW what he would mean by them, they carry far different significance. From an epistemological standpoint? Yes. All merely human knowledge is apparently self contradictory. The problem of the one and the many (for example) taught us that a few thousand years ago and the entire history of philosophy is littered with the intellectual corpses of those who have both attempted to say otherwise as well as those who have conceded the point without resolution. I hope you understand how vast and sprawling this whole arena of thought is. Not just historically, but in itself.

I suspect you got those quotes second hand and I will then have to dig them out of the original works they came from, though as I say, since I now know they are Van Til’s, I also now know that he was certainly speaking from the standpoint of foundational axiomatic first principle and not just declaring EVERYTHING, including scripture contradictory.

I’ll need time.

Here are the quotes and the references:
“Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradiction in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical.”
(Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 61)

“… while we shun as poison the idea of the really contradictory we embrace with passion the idea of the apparently contradictory.”
(Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, 9)

“All teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory.”
(Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, 142)

Do these quotes represent the majority view of reformed orthodoxy?

I don’t think they do.

Those are both quotes from Van Til. I am sure some one will tell me he really meant something else. That seems to be the way it goes on here.

We have passed the point of productivity I believe. At least for now.. I have enjoyed our conversation, count you a brother, and I hope friend and do bid you Godspeed.

A rationalist believes that knowledge can be obtained by the use of logic alone. Clark’s position is that Scripture is our only source of knowledge. Logic applied to the Scriptures gives us knowledge, but not logic by itself. Possibly you distort Clark’s views because you don’t know what rationalism is, but I doubt that is the case. I think you distort the truth because you are not really searching for it.

You never answered this:
“You are going to contend that Clark’s rationalism is the majority view of reformed orthodoxy and that the crew at WTS, especially Van Til, were the guys advancing novelty? Is that right?”

John Calvin says:… yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect.
Calvin reminds us that God’s justice is nonetheless “unblamable”. Why?

John Calvin says:.. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected;
Indeed the apostle does not.

John Calvin says:… for it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men;
God did not see fit to subject His judgement nor his reason/s for it to ours. Agree.

John Calvin says:… and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable.
This is Pringle’s translation from the Latin and I don’t know Latin ,but he has Calvin here continuing with the phrase “and besides”, which means “in addition to and apart from”. Assuming the translation is accurate, Calvin is saying: “in addition to and apart from these immediately preceding points I’ve just been making, as I said before, it is not only secret, but incomprehensible as well.

John Calvin says:… He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension.
I agree again. This is what I’ve said all along. His word commands men to behave and believe in ways that He Himself has not only made no possibility for them to do, but He has also Himself fitted them for destruction. If we take verses 22 and 23 as eternal parallels to one another and go with the passive voice for κατηρτισμένα (though some say middle, which still wouldn’t make this an Arminian statement) in the phrase “κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν”, “prepared for destruction” ESV, then God has created and fashioned them for the expressed purpose of destroying them for being and doing evil which He remains spotlessly pure in relation to.

That exceeds my comprehension. The reasons for His merely choosing this one or that may not exceed my comprehension if He just told me. The reason for His choice is secret and in that sense mysterious. It is not incomprehensible in the same sense as creation ex nihilo. The reason for His choice in other words is beyond by view, not beyond my powers.

John Calvin says:… He yet shows, that as far as God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.
And as far as it does NOT manifest itself, that is, remains Hidden in divine mystery, it is entirely incomprehensible. I suppose it is debatable what Calvin here intends by the word “appears”. I took him in the objective sense “God’s predestination shows itself to be just” You took it in the subjective sense. “We SEE it as just”. If it simply appeared perfectly just in that sense, it would make no sense for Paul to intercept the inevitable objection of verse 19 when addressing: “those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:” (1:7)

(my skills in Koine Greek are quite feeble so I’m open to correction)

Please show me where Calvin says that. I missed it. It appears to me that you are simply taking something Calvin wrote on one subject and applying to another.

Calvin: “BESIDES”.

In addition to this part of what he’s been saying, there’s also the fact of the inexplicably and incomprehensibility of the whole matter at hand. NOT of why individuals are elect. That’s not inexplicable. He could have told us why Joe was chosen and Fred wasn’t. He just didn’t. What’s inexplicable is HOW. We as His creatures are denied both the why and the how and should rest content therein.

Confusion is the wrong way to characterize the divines on this score and I’m sure there was some divergence among those in the assembly. The bottom line is either NOTHING is contingent OR some things are. Secondarily or not makes no ultimate difference in relation to God Himself. If ANYthing is contingent to Him then this universe could not exist. If NOthing is then NOthing is and any talk of the liberty or contingency of secondary causes is for our benefit only. They did the best they could with what they had to work with and called it a mystery.

This topic is actually one component in a much broader arena of thought. Please see here. http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/podcasts/ctc289/ I kinda stepped on Justin’s toes, but the dialog there is about the foundation which governs what we are talking about here. I wish I had more time now, but I am way behind with all this internet trouble I’ve been having.

Calvin: “He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable.”

The inexplicable mystery that is contained in the secret counsel of God that should not be subjected to the judgment of men is “why this man is chosen and that man rejected.”

Calvin: “[Paul] yet shows, that as far as God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.”

Calvin doesn’t say predestination appears to contradict itself, he rather says “it appears perfectly just.”

I agree with Calvin. I agree that it is a mystery why this man is chosen and that man is not. I agree with Calvin that, as far as it manifests itself, predestination appears perfectly just.

You say, “I think he means both”, but the quote you post does not demonstrate that and you give no explanation.

What of the divines?

You wrote:
“WCF II:II …”nothing is to him contingent”…
WCF III:I …” nor is the … contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

Which is it. The eminent divines couldn’t seem to make up their minds.”

Are you saying the divines were confused? If they were confused, does that put them on your side?

Regarding the quote from the Romans 9 commentary, Calvin is not saying that the supposed apparent contradiction between God’s sovereignty and God holding man responsible is the “mystery which our minds cannot comprehend”, he is rather saying that the cause of God’s choice of who to elect to eternal life and who to pass by in reprobation is the mystery upon which we should not speculate and thus go beyond Scripture. Calvin grants that God has a right to do as he pleases and that what he does is righteous and just. Calvin’s clear point in this passage from his commentary is not that we should refrain from any attempt to reconcile alleged paradoxes in Scripture, but that we should not look for anything outside of God Himself to account for his choice of the objects of His mercy and the objects of His wrath.

Lets not forget the Westminster Assembly, Confession III, “Of God’s Eternal Decree”, section VIII: “VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care…”

Look brother. Clark was a good man, but struggled with slavery to his own mind and it got worse as he got older. The practical whole of reformed orthodoxy has always held Calvin’s attitude. “I dunno know how this works and neither do you. Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gets it and I don’t. Blessed be the name of the LORD.”

NOBODY has EVER said, including me, that there does or even could exist ANY truth of God that is contradictory or irreconcilable. Only that WE can’t do it, like Calvin said. We adore it as we adore Him who dwells in unapproachable light who is it’s exalted origin. It’s a bit disconcerting hearing a guy seriously contend that his 3 pound brain is able to contain and parse the eternal decree of almighty God when the Westminster Divines (over 120 or em) spent 4 years hammering all this out and emerged with a mystery.

With all due charity and respect. You really don’t see how one might look just a bit askance at such an assertion?

Greg
Your quote from Calvin does not deal with the two propositions we have been discussing. I am not aware of where you discussed Augustine. Maybe I missed it.

John Calvin didn’t seem to think they could be comprehended either. (neither did Augustine) Of course he’s not God, but he’s not Van Til either.

I plead guilty to attempting to reconcile two propositions of Scripture that you believe cannot be reconciled. I am guilty of attempting to understand what you claim to know is impossible to comprehend, I wonder how you could possibly know what you claim to know.

Yet you accuse me of implying that there is something “apparently counterfeit in the revelation of God.”
No sir. My apologies if I was unclear. I was rejecting your accusation that I was alleging something “apparently counterfeit” in the revelation of God. I was not accusing YOU of such an allegation.

What I was accusing you of was attempting comprehension where clearly none is possible.

Let’s keep our accusations straight huh pal? 😀

What I was accusing you of was attempting comprehension where clearly none is possible.

Let’s keep our accusations straight huh pal? 😀

If I had a $100 bill in my hand that was “apparently counterfeit”, it would pose no problem. That the bill was counterfeit would be apparent. The bill would appear to be counterfeit. I wrote of a bill that did not appear so.

You are one who holds a bill that he can not distinguish from a real one and claims not only that he knows it is counterfeit, but that he knows no one else can distinguish it from a real one either.

While Calvin goes a bit rougher on our hypothetical inquirer in Romans 9:19 than I would, I’ll submit his words on v.20 from his commentary.

[Paul] reminds man of what is especially meet for him to remember, that is, of his own condition; as though he had said, — “Since thou art man, thou ownest thyself to be dust and ashes; why then doest thou contend with the Lord about that which thou art not able to understand?” In a word, the Apostle did not bring forward what might have been said, but what is suitable to our ignorance. Proud men clamour, because Paul, admitting that men are rejected or chosen by the secret counsel of God, alleges no cause; as though the Spirit of God were silent for want of reason, and not rather, that by his silence he reminds us, that a mystery which our minds cannot comprehend ought to be reverently adored, and that he thus checks the wantonness of human curiosity. Let us then know, that God does for no other reason refrain from speaking, but that he sees that we cannot contain his immense wisdom in our small measure; and thus regarding our weakness, he leads us to moderation and sobriety.

I couldn’t have said it better.

Van Tilians assert paradoxes in Scripture. By paradox they mean “apparent contradiction”. They acknowledge that there are no real contradictions in Scripture, but, they say, there are found in Scripture what cannot be distinguished from real contradictions. I will call them counterfeit contradictions.

Counterfeit money appears to be real money. Counterfeit contradictions appear to be real contradictions. Counterfeit money can be difficult to distinguish from real money. The closer the appearance of counterfeit money to real money the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between the two.

If I were to receive a $100 bill that I knew to be counterfeit but I could not distinguish from a real $100 bill, is there any way that I could know that no one else could distinguish it from a real bill? If I could both not distinguish it myself and know that no one else could either, is there any way I could be certain it was counterfeit? Perhaps my reason for “knowing” it to be counterfeit was faulty. Perhaps it isn’t counterfeit at all. Perhaps I should spend it. Why not?

But my problem doesn’t end there. Since at least one perfect counterfeit exists, how can I know that it is the only one? I certainly can’t do it by examining the bills that I am offered. Am I to just give up paying attention the authenticity of the money I receive? Should I value equally a perfect counterfeit and a real $100 bill? How can I do anything else?

My only two options are to value them all or value none of them, since I cannot distinguish between them.

Likewise, if it were true that paradoxes and contradictions cannot be distinguished, as Van Tilians claim, one should either accept them all or accept none of them. Those are the only two options that one has if one is honest.

You are willing to admit when something APPEARS contradictory to you and I am not, therefore, you are superior to me. Your position is superior to mine because you are humble enough to admit that you can’t understand why God would do what you admit He does do. My position that these two truths that God has revealed do not appear contradictory to me, is obviously arrogant. My refusal to admit my ignorance is certainly makes me the arrogant one. Aren’t you insinuating that “trusting” in a God who does things that you consider indistinguishable from contradictions is a superior approach to any attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions?

It seems to me that your humility may really be arrogance.

I agree that we are probably wasting our time at this point, but I am not declaring victory. I have not convinced you of anything. I consider that a failure.

8. Sovereignty and Responsibility

The question is whether there is a real or apparent contradiction involved in the truth of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

Let us put both truths in propositional form:

1. God is absolutely sovereign; even so that he determines the moral acts of man, both good and evil.

2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.

Now, the question is not whether there is a problem here. It may well be that we cannot answer the question how God is able to determine man’s deeds without destroying man’s responsibility. That he is able to do so is asserted plainly by the two propositions stated above. But whether or not we can understand this operation of the sovereign God upon man is not the question. The sole question is whether the two propositions concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are contradictory. This we deny. In fact, they cannot possibly be, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects.

They would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But this is not true. The first proposition asserts something about God: He is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man. The second proposition predicates something about man: He is responsible for his moral acts. Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible? If it does you have here a contradiction. But it does not. Those who like to discover a contradiction here, usually the enemies of the truth of God’s sovereignty, simply take for granted that to assert that God is sovereign even over man’s acts is to say the same as that man is not responsible. It must be pointed out, however, that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man.

The two propositions would, of course, also be contradictory if the second proposition denied what is affirmed in the first. In that case, sovereignty even over the acts of man would be both affirmed and denied to God. But also this is neither expressed nor implied in the two propositions, unless it can first be shown conclusively that to say that man is responsible is the same as declaring that God is not sovereign over his moral acts. And this has never been demonstrated, nor is it self-evident.

If they were really contradictory they could not both be the object of the Christian’s faith. We could only conclude that either the one or the other were not true.

I gave definitions to both mystery and paradox and distinguished between them. We spoke of two things that have been revealed in God’s word. Neither the sovereignty of God nor the responsibility of man are mysteries because both have been made known by divine revelation.

You have declared that these two revealed truths appear contradictory to you, but you have failed to give an adequate explanation of why they seem so. You do not admit that it seems to you that God “ought not” to be both sovereign and hold man responsible, but, from everything you have written, I can’t reach any other conclusion.

I know all the guys at TF and as you see from my comment 120 seconds before yours, I know about Clark too. I was asking you to point me to where a prominent man or movement within reformed orthodoxy denied divine mystery. You have since conceded divine mystery, but come nigh unto slaying the same into the death of a thousand qualifications.

Consider the words of Calvin in the 2nd book of his institutes, Chapter 12 section 5:
“5. Should any one object, that in this there is nothing to prevent the same Christ who redeemed us when condemned from also testifying his love to us when safe by assuming our nature, we have the brief answer, that when the Spirit declares that by the eternal decree of God the two things were connected together–viz. that Christ should be our Redeemer, and, at the same time, a partaker of our nature, it is unlawful to inquire further. He who is tickled with a desire of knowing something more, not contented with the immutable ordination of God, shows also that he is not even contented with that Christ who has been given us as the price of redemption. And, indeed, Paul not only declares for what end he was sent, but rising to the sublime mystery of predestination, seasonably represses all the wantonness and prurience of the human mind. “He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved: In whom we have redemption through his blood,” (Eph. 1:4-7). Here certainly the fall of Adam is not presupposed as anterior in point of time, but our attention is directed to what God predetermined before all ages, when he was pleased to provide a cure for the misery of the human race. If, again, it is objected that this counsel of God depended on the fall of man, which he foresaw, to me it is sufficient and more to reply, that those who propose to inquire, or desire to know more of Christ than God predestinated by his secret decree, are presuming with impious audacity to invent a new Christ. Paul, when discoursing of the proper office of Christ, justly prays for the Ephesians that God would strengthen them “by his Spirit in the inner man,” that they might “be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge,” (Eph. 3:16, 18); as if he intended of set purpose to set barriers around our minds, and prevent them from declining one iota from the gift of reconciliation whenever mention is made of Christ. “

With Calvin I simply refuse to probe deeper than the Lord has revealed.

The difference between you and I is that I’m willing to say something APPEARS contradictory to me, but has it’s righteous resolution in the being, mind and will of God.

You replace the idea and phraseology of “apparent contradiction” with “mystery” and then say that it doesn’t even appear contradictory to you. I say you are trying to save God from a pickle He’s not in, by artificially narrowing the gulf between His understanding and your own.

or

http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=75

You say: 2. this does not rule out secondary causes

Here’s where the mystery (paradox) starts.

WCF II:II …”nothing is to him contingent”…

WCF III:I …” nor is the … contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

Which is it. The eminent divines couldn’t seem to make up their minds. (I don’t blame them btw) To answer “well, they’re contingent for us, but not for him”, is jist peachy keen, but that still makes nothing ultimately contingent. Call it by whatever semantic label you want. He gets it, we don’t and it makes no sense to us. Guys like Clark can’t seem to get themselves comfortable with a God who is THAT much bigger than they are.

Greg
Understood

Paradox: a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

1. true
2. this does not rule out secondary causes
3, men are totally depraved (in bondage to sin)
4, not necessarily “directly”
5. God has from all eternity decreed whatsoever shall come to pass.

Steve M says: God knows the future in its entirety. I do not.
Here’s where I think our problem is. You are willing to concede “mystery”, but not “paradox” as if the two were essentially different. I say this is once again “semantic nitpicking and a distinction without a difference”. Before I go further lemme make sure I have your view straight.

1. God is the first and efficient cause of all that comes to pass.

2. Including sin and evil

3. Men are NOT free.

4. They are therefore directly predetermined to whatever they are and whatever they do by God.

5. This is how God knows the future. He is it’s author.

Where do I need correction so far?

I will tell you something that God knows that I do not. God knows the future in its entirety. I do not. God knows whether you are one of the elect. I do not. I can only speculate on such things.

I’ll try again, but I’ll have to quote myself from a couple days ago.
“Greg – (Tiribulus) clearly stated on July 26, 2013 at 1:00 pm:
The word “contradiction” occurs now 26 times on this page including this post. Except FOR this post I have not used it once.

I have still thus far not charged God with contradiction even once. That’s your word not mine. I prefer the word “mystery”. That’s where God is or does stuff that I can’t understand, but trust Him anyway because He says it’s cool. Now. You say you are not omniscient. I agree. You also say that God is. I agree there too. Let’s try it yet another way. Could I prevail upon you to please tell something that God says he knows that you don’t? Please?