Reformed Apologetics

[Music] welcome to Christ the center your weekly conversation of reformed theology this episode number 596 my name is Camden Busey I served as pastor of hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grayslake Illinois where I am today I'm delighted to be back to discuss some important issues talking apologetics today an episode I'm sure many of our listeners have been waiting for I know that because they've been asking for a long time but before we get into that subject let me introduce to you our regulars we have with us Jeff Waddington who is a member of the presbytery of Philadelphia co-founder reform forum on the faculty here welcome back Jeff it's great to speak with you oh good good to be here good too the beautiful day outside actually for the first time in a few days in Philadelphia yeah well we're still waiting for a get together to chat about important theological matters yes that's what we do here talk about theological matters and there's a lot going on if you've been reading the posts and comments and stuff there's a lot a lot going on at reformed forum org but we've got with us also today Jim Cassidy Jim Cassidy's pastor of South Austin OPC in South Austin Texas welcome back Jim it's great to speak with you too just like last week good to be here Canada take you now I think you're doing this intentionally every week Jim Jim never never fails at some point and I'm thankful brother that you do mute yourself you do mute yourself when you're not intending to talk that helps with the audio editing it really does but Jim often forgets to unmute himself when it is time to talk and anyway then that causes more editing problems for me down the road anyway today we're gonna be speaking about apologetics namely the politic the apologetics with Cornelius Van Til which we loved so dearly but we intended to interact directly with the new book by our ministerial colleague Jay V fess Co John Fusco who was at Westminster seminary California and moved on to Reformed Theological Seminary and Jackson has written a book reforming apologetics retrieving the classic reformed approach to defending the faith has been published by Bakker academic this year so that's 2019 and we're looking forward to reading through well not read and walking through this and then reading some selections and we're focusing this book isn't entirely about Cornelius Van Til that he's certainly the main one of the main dialogue partners and we are looking to do somewhat of a project of conversation but reading some quotes from from dr. Fusco's book and then also backtracking some of the citations that he includes for Van Til and then reading some quotations from those citations so we're doing a little bit of a I guess this isn't a workshop but we're doing scholarship in Reverse or taking a finished product and then working backwards and tracing the trail and seeking to read critically and then compare dr. Fusco's interaction with Van Til with what Van Til wrote and what Van Tillis is what we believe the until is saying and on that front we hope to continue this conversation we hope to have in our in the in this forum and hope also down the road to speak with dr. fresco for able either an interview or if a moderated conversation or if we're able to have some written discourse than some rejoinders we would be happy to do that so we want to have a kind and charitable interaction but we're going to begin that conversation today by marching through some different quotations in the book and interacting with them in that regard before we get to that guys do we have any any particular announcements or any any special updates anything that you guys would like to mention no well I do encourage people to check out the website reformed form dot org and also if you didn't get a chance to listen to last week's episode we very much would like for you to hear our announcement and reform forum is kind of moving into a new chapter a new stage and so come July first I'll be working as reformed forums executive director full-time I've been called by my local church hope OPC has called me as an evangelist if people about a lot of questions about that in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church we have three three offices within the church there's Minister there are ruel ders and there are deacons now for ministers ministers can take the form of three different in installations it's not the different office but it's a different function that you are installed and called to perform certain activities and the three different installations of Minister our pastor most people are very very clear about what pastors do at least they ought to be but there's also teachers teachers can be teachers in a seminary I would say most often people who are installed we're very frequently people are installed as teachers they're teaching in a seminary or a Christian school of sorts they could also be teachers of the congregation and Jeff used to be teacher of the congregation at Calvary OPC and Ringo's New Jersey teachers so have to have there has to be a pastor at the local church before there can be a teacher of the congregation but the third installation is that of evangelists evangelists often are either foreign missionaries or home missionaries but if I can bust out the the form of government here I can read the statement under which I was called you can find this at the OPC book at church order form of government it's online but chapter 7 paragraph 2 says the Evangelist in common with other ministers is ordained to perform all the functions that belong to the sacred office of the minister yet distinctive to the function of the Evangelist in his ministry of the gospel are the labors of a missionary in a home or foreign mission field a stated supply or special preacher and churches to which he does not Stane a pastoral relation a chaplain in institutions were in military forces an editor of an agency for preaching the gospel right an administrator of an agency for preaching the gospel and then finally an editor or similar ministry through the press and other means of communication so I was called with a specific view towards section II under form of government 7 2 and um that's that's a pretty broad category but the ayat the reason that I was called ostensibly to be an evangelist and not to be a teacher for example although a great amount of my efforts will be teaching and developing curriculum at reform for him was because the the precise scope and the purview of my efforts will be primarily based upon those outside the local congregation we will develop all of our curriculum and resources within the context of the local church but my work is primarily focused upon serving and reaching people outside of the confines of our local congregation and so it makes a little bit more sense to be an evangelist as one sent out to reach those folks for the sake of the gospel in distinction from a teacher of the congregation whose primary activity is to teach and instruct the people within the local congregation that God does that make sense guys you think we got all the ducks in the row on that at least explaining them sounds eminently reasonable right well I appreciate that if anybody has any more questions and would like to interact with us or just curious how this works or the rationale for it please just contact us I'm thankful for many on Twitter and others who have been interacting with me and asking me questions and encouraged me encouraging me in in these things so I love to talk more but you can you can get us on Twitter you can also send us an email mail at Reformed forum dot org that'll get to me all right guys let's get back to today's subject then reforming apologetics retrieving the classic approach the classic reformed approach to defending the faith by J V Fusco our brother and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and looking forward to speaking about this I read this book a few weeks ago read every word and marked it up quite a bit so we had a lot of interaction with it Jeff we know that you're thanked in the acknowledgments pray I thank thank the Lord that you had worked on a previous version or a manuscript them notes that dr. fresco had written and offered some feedback and you Jim as well have read the entire book now and so we're very desirous of talking about this and again we speak because we've been asked I've been asked several times in person and also people keep writing in and saying when are you gonna talk about dr. Fusco's book when you're gonna respond when you're gonna ask questions this this kind of thing and so we're doing that today and again I hope I pray that this can be the beginning of a conversation we can all grow in our understanding of apologetics and serve Christ and I know dr. fresco desires that too so um that's that's our agenda today I've got a few notes and things I'm working with and I wrote these up in preparation as I went down to Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary to lecture on apologetics I delivered a public lecture but I was also able to speak in the classroom for two hours dr. Curt Oh was kind enough to invite me to do that and I took the time to speak about Van Til and natural revelation and that's right up the alley here in terms of what dr. fresco is addressing in the book dr. fresco claims one of the central claims I won't say it's the central claim but one of the main points and main criticisms that dr. fresco has a Van Til and Van Til Ian's apologetics is is that Van Til rejects common notions would you guys agree that that's really one of the main issues at play within this book I think yes for clearly that that's what dr. fresco believes we will get into what we think are misunderstandings in this area but but yes that that's clearly what's up front the common notions chapter is what the second chapter after the intro there's the light of nature and then common notions I think so that's big it is it's the second chapter and it's it's a concern that seems to run throughout the the brain as a whole and it seems to be a central concern from which the other concerns are kind of deduced so yeah it's it's a major issue that that dr. fresco raises and I think it's it's one that's worth discussion I think just you know leading into Camden your comments I think that dr. fresco does a great job of documenting the idea of common notions both from both within the reformed tradition as well as outside of the reformed tradition so he's he's rendered a good service to us in this regard he set up the discussion he's done the the kind of homework that is very appreciated and so as we get into the idea of common notions he's really set us up well to be able to dive into evaluating Van Til Zhai sure you know it's probably best to start even before we get to whether or not Van Til rejected or accepted common notions and how and what he means by by those things it's it's important to raise to the forefront Van Til Zess a nature in Scripture which is included in the book the infallible word because it's there really it's there that Van Til provides his clearest and most succinct statement on his doctrine of natural revelation so if you really if you're addressing Van Til on natural revelation that is the the sin akwonton really you you must address nature in Scripture and that was probably my biggest disappointment that dr. fresco has not interacted with that essay I believe Jeff you'd even spoken to him about this so I if I'm not mistaken I did I was I'm surprised that that because it is so germane to the subject matter and I've actually taught on this at Westminster seminary because it's a widely thought even amongst to some of the some of the students who've come into Westminster the dr. Van Til rejects natural theology and I said if you read nature in Scripture you'll see that he doesn't reject natural theology as such what he is is critical of various attempts to do it but he actually happens to think there is a legitimate form of natural theology which seeks to explicate as the as the teaching of God's Word in his the teaching of the Westminster Confession of faith that's that's actually that's the upfront part of nature in Scripture right it's only at the end that he gets into the critique of other forms of other ways of doing natural theology right and so as he does as he develops his apologetic man till begins of course everywhere with the self attesting God of Scripture and nature that doesn't mean everything he says or every logical argument has to start with the syllogism or the proposition that God is a self a testing one but it means that the foundation of all thought evolved of all existence is God himself and God speaks and God doesn't need another Authority to back him up he's the self attesting God who makes himself known in the Bible which is a form of special revelation but he also makes himself known clearly to everyone in nature in the things that have been made very clearly so he has a very robust doctrine of general and special revelation and that's a real important point for Van Til especially as he develops his argument in nature in Scripture the the essay it's that the same God reveals himself in nature and in grace it's the same God who reveals himself in two ways would it be helpful even as we're getting into this too perhaps and I it may be more appropriate for us to do this down the line but should we define for our listeners the the two words or the two phrases we brought up natural theology and common notions I'm I'm not sure I think that a lot of the confusion about these issues arises from from the fact that there are there are in fact various definitions of those terms but I think that for our purposes if we were able to define them upfront it might help our yeah please be my guest go ahead I think that's wise we're gonna get there eventually but I think doing it now is probably better okay all right yeah so I didn't want to jump the gun but we could talk about a little bit more as we get into it but I think the idea and I'm gonna look to Jeff here to help flesh out sort of the details of these definitions but in short common notions would be sort of those things that both believer and unbeliever have and possess by virtue of the image of God so for instance a sense of morality a sense of the existence of God that there's something greater than oneself there's something greater than the than the creation etc a very clear sense of right and wrong the conscience we might say in short that these are the kinds of things that that constitute common notions Jeff does that sound right am I for that that's exactly right in the first two chapters in the book light of nature and common notions can be interchanged dr. fresco draws points in particular to Anthony Burgess one of the members of the Westminster assembly who also at the time of the assembly was teaching on on natural law or common notions and it's pretty clear that Anthony Burgess offers four other definitions of light of nature and common notions that he rejects and basically it comes down to light of nature equals the mosaic the Ten Commandments the moral law equals common notions so those are almost synonymous not exactly synonymous so the over there overlapping meanings so common notions refer to the knowledge that we possess of God by virtue of being created in His image living in his world surrounded by his natural and special revelation now so that's common notions now don't I mean I could be wrong but I don't know anybody in our circle that would disagree with really with that definition no I think dr. Fisk is quite quite clear quite right that it's a it's a reformed idea or it's an idea that you find within reformed theology Catholic idea it extends beyond the reformed it's not unique to the reform but it's definitely within the reformed tradition how would you then define natural theology just before - it well there's natural we want to distinguish between natural revelation which is what God reveals of himself through nature including human nature that's what God reveals the natural theology is the human reflection upon the natural revelation so the the reformed scholastics made a distinction between true theology and false theology and they would put any natural theology done by unbelievers in the category of false theology that's huge and that of course is where we're going to get some disagreement I think with dr. fresco is I didn't see the Clair the clarity of that way of looking at things you can look at Richard Muller's post-reformation reform dogmatix you can look at John Owen you can look at Franciscus Union unius turret in' and if you know Latin a whole host of other oh the Peter fan Maastricht also whose work is coming out slowly but surely we'll see that kind of distinction so natural revelation is from God it's clear if dr. van T would argue in nature in Scripture it possesses the four perfections of special revelation right which are of necessity Authority sufficiency and perspicuity he says natural revelation is necessary it is authoritative it is sufficient and it is perspicuous so he affirms those because God speaks and reveals himself through nature and Scripture so those those attributes can be shared and described the you can describe natural revelation with those attributes because it is God revealing himself right now natural theology does not necessarily partake of those four perfections where it departs from the truth of natural revelation and of course that's why the Protestants the reformed scholastics in particular would have classified natural theology done by unbelievers as false theology it must necessarily be false theology because it comes forth from a nun regenerated heart crass that's correct so it's not the revelation that's the problem the REA it's the reception of that revelation where the things go awry so when theology is we could call natural theology than perhaps in in the falsi sense right that attempt by man to articulate a view of God that is autonomous or or that is rebellious against the very revelation that they're using to articulate their natural theology sort of a Romans one suppressing of the truth right now the common notion of course would be the truth that's oppressed so we that's right so we do recognize that there are common notions or else we couldn't have notions that are common that are suppressed by the unbeliever all right it's only but these these common notions I think are well we'll get into this first year let's read yeah let's go forward so dr. fresco of course claiming that Van Til rejects common notions he writes and quoted on page twenty four page twenty four of his book in the middle of the seventeenth century philosophers such as John Locke rejected the idea of common notions in the 20th century this rejection made its way to liberal and conservative reformed theologians alike including Karl Bart and Cornelius Van Til so number one he says Van Til rejects common notions but he also links Van Til with Bart under the heading of reformed which a constant refrain throughout the book I think it happens three or four times Van Til is always frequently linked with Bart and we can talk about why because ostensibly it appears that Van Til rejected natural theology again he certainly does not but that's where people make the the comparison there Bart rejects natural theology but Bart also rejects a natural revelation and then Van Til has issues with is very critical of an unbelieving or a neutral form of natural theology but let me continue here this is where rubber really meets a robe dr. fresco draws particular attention to Van tills discussion of authority and reason on pages 168 and 100 169 of Defense of the faith the third edition so that's not the most recent edition so the the Edition he's working with is one prior which is fine it's not any different from what you would have in the latest edition on this point except the page numbers would be different just just so you know if you want to backtrack this you need to find the third edition so again he says Van Til rejects common notions and then he says look especially at pages 168 and 169 of Antilla on this so on those pages Van Til makes an important distinction these are on the pages that Fusco cites a word must now be said about the idea of common notions referred to in the quotation given above this is Van Til writing the present writer made a distinction between notions that are psychologically and metaphysically that is revelational II common to all men and common notions that are ethically and epistemological II common that is a Cornelius Van Til defense of the faith 168 and then Van Til goes on to say on page 168 all men have common notions about God all men naturally have knowledge of God okay so Fusco says May until denies common notions any sites page 168 of defense of the faith and on page 168 of defense of the faith fan till says all men have notions about God all men naturally have knowledge of God so here we need to get into the discussion of what's dr. fresco talking about because Van Til says the opposite of what he claims him to say on the very page he cites so where where's the rub what's the distinction what is dr. fresco picking up on that cut that leads him to make the opposite conclusion of what they until at least is saying in that sentence seems to me that that the common notions is a broader category for dr. fess code a properly functioning common notions are a broader category for vesco than they are for dr. Van Til as you noticed in what you read dr. Van Til says that there are metaphysical in Psychological common notions that all men share but that there are there are epistemological and ethical restrictions on on the cominis uncommon so-called common notions so that's I think where the rub is well here's yeah go ahead Jim I was just gonna say and we've made the distinction before right where we would say we're Van Til says that that metaphysically all men have everything in common epistemological er covenant aliy or ethically they have nothing in common so that we understand that no believer and unbeliever approaches ethics life anything in the same way because the one is by grace covenant aliy United to Christ and constrained towards his glory towards the glory of Christ and so as such is doing things to the glory of Christ however imperfectly in this life with a view towards con cements fellowship and relationship with God in in the new heavens and new earth whereas the unbeliever is doing it in a in a way that is antagonistic towards God and His glory and so in that sense one is in Adam than the other is in Christ and because of that radical covenant 'el antithesis it has implications for where the way in which we we interpret reality or interpret the facts around us let's flush this out a little more I'll continue reading some quotes from this same page of Van Til 168 of the third edition of Defense of the faith he writes it is this actual possession of the knowledge of God that is the indispensible presupposition of man's ethical opposition to God there could be no absolute ethical antithesis to God on the part of Satan and fallen man unless they are self-consciously against the common notions that are con created with them Paul speaks of sinful man as suppressing within him the knowledge of God that he has moreover he writes it is these notions of human autonomy or irrational discontinuity and of rationalistic continuity that are the common notions of sinful or apostate mankind and so these what Van Til is saying is that all men even Satan even angels there are common notions that are common to all people knowledge of God an obligation ethical obligation to him we know God but what happens is those who are fallen in sin and are not regenerate they are not in Christ they seek to suppress that truth in unrighteousness and then that subset of unregenerate unrighteous people they also have things that are common to them it's not to deny that there are commonalities and common notions among all people but there are also a subset of things that are common to unbelievers and a subset of notions that are common to believers so the things that are common are in a sense ethically and epistemologically common that is they are the stated and lived principles of natural man that are against the Lord and his kingdom so we can say there are common notions period then we then as Van Til says there are also unbelieving common notions they're all opposed to God they're all live in rebellion thus that's additional knowledge as or additional notions they have by virtue of being fallen in sin so that Van Til continues in the it is this fact that the natural man using the principles and using his principles and working on his assumptions must be hostile in principle at every point to the Christian philosophy of life that was stressed in the writers little book common grace that all men have all things in common metaphysically and psychologically was definitely asserted and further that the natural man has epistemologically nothing in common with the Christian and this latter assertion was qualified by saying that this is so only in principle for it is not till after the consummation of history that men are left wholly to themselves so when Van Til says that man believers and unbelievers have nothing in common epistemologically that is to say that on our own professed system of knowledge that we do not share things with the unbeliever the unbeliever knows things that are true that's in eradicable the unbeliever knows a ton of stuff that is right and true formerly speaking but in terms of what they rest that knowledge upon at least what they say they rested upon an autonomous world a world of idolatry whatever they have nothing in common with the Christian epistemological adji which is based upon Christ and on God's revelation that's the difference it's not that he rejects common notions that unbelievers don't know anything he's rejecting the fact that what they profess to be and how they profess to know is wrong and it's wrong at every point and so the unbeliever is a walking epistemological contradiction because while they know things that are true they say they don't and they live with every fiber of their being in a way that seeks to reject that knowledge that they all possess by virtue of being made in God's image that's a really important distinction that Van Til makes and I think missing that distinction is what leads dr. Fusco to say that the until rejects common notions even when Van Til says that he acknowledges common notions I have a question for Jeff because this has come up in other discussions that we've had here on Christ the center and and Jeff as already in fact it's in his dissertation so I commend the dissertation the book version of the dissertation to our listeners but Jeff doesn't Jonathan Edwards and not just Edwards but others as well make a similar distinction I think they use different words but a similar distinction with regards to the common notions idea so while Van Til you know speaks about combinations metaphysically and epistemologically I think maybe Edwards uses the language of a spiritual light versus natural light or something like that he he has and it's not invented by Edwards these pet he's passing along what had been formulated earlier amongst the Puritans in England and that is the distinction between speculative knowledge or understanding and spiritual knowledge or understanding the speculative is shared you might say it's common if the spiritual is where the antithesis lies and you may remember some years ago Jim I posted on Facebook a citation from Cornelius Van Til that a lot of people thought was actually Edwards because of this distinction advantag read with Edwards on this distinction between and you in order to have spiritual understanding you have to have speculative understanding but you could have speculative understanding without spiritual understanding see that's that's the issue and so that is getting in a similar a different language that's getting at some of what we're talking about here it's it's it's a it's all tied in of course with the noetic effects of the fall right in what sense does does the unbeliever not know God and in what sense does the believer know God right and things we could say by extension and what sense does the unbeliever no the world in which he or she lives and in what sense does the unbeliever not know the world in which he or she lives and they're related you know to use biblical language you know there's there's living in darkness and there's living in light you're right so the unbeliever lives in darkness and the scripture calls the unbeliever blind and that's that's picking up on the antithesis that that Van Til was talking about and there there we could try to be ridiculous with the Scriptures and say well they're not blind they obviously can see they obviously are able to know things they don't literally stumble in the dark in a physical way and of course that would similar protests have been leveled against Van Til by saying well of course unbelievers know things oftentimes unbelievers know more things and believers and unbelievers know things oftentimes in a better more intelligent more logical way and then a then a believer does so that that seems to kind I mean that those questions about what Van Til is saying when he talks about the antithesis epistemologically those those protests seem to just keep coming up and up and up again as if they until we're saying that the unbeliever can know nothing right you know no truth and in his own they don't put the lie to that they don't pay attention to what Van Til says with regard to the in principle language it's in principle that the unbeliever knows nothing if the unbeliever were actually living out his or her unbelief consistently they would not be able to know anything but in fact the young believer does know things as we've already said because rain unbeliever lives in God's world is created in God's image and so forth so so you know it is I suppose it's the glass is half-full half-empty kind of thing which is but we have to stress which I think dr. fresco is is trying to is not wanting distress as much the the antithesis of believer belief versus unbelief let's interact with another quote a really important one that he raises and actually uses it as one of the quotations in the heading you know every chapter begins with a chapter title and then like a quotation that sets the tone for the chapter well one of them is a quotation that he cites from a letter that Van Til wrote to Francis Schaeffer on March 11th 1969 and the quotation that he pulls out of that letters is this van tills writing I think you will agree then that no form of natural theology has ever spoken properly of the God who is there so that's the quote in isolation but let me read to you that in context when Van Til hears letter to Schaeffer the larger context not the whole letter letters online you can find at the OPC website the web and he'll writes when the Westminster Confession speaks of God as alone and unto himself all sufficient and as the alone fountain of being it is speaking of the triune God Father Son and Holy Ghost chapter two of which the scripture speaks it is this triune God of Scripture who is there it is this God who has created the world and who is accordingly manifest in the world the works of creation and of Providence are the works of this God he who does not recognize the presence and all controlling activity of this God in nature and in history therefore in a basic sense misinterprets all the facts with which he deals in any way I think you will agree then that no form of natural theology has ever spoken properly of the God who is there none of the Greek great Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and none the great none of the great modern philosophers like the cart caught Hegel or Kierkegaard and others have ever spoken of the God who is there the systems of thought of these men represent a repression of the revelation of the God who is there so clearly in context may until speaking about the unbelieving thought there's there's no unbelieving natural geology that ever speaks rightly because it can't because it denies God's existence and it denies the God who is actually there and more so we could also say by extension that a Christian never engages in natural theology alone either you always engage in natural theology of course in the context and with the understanding of everything that God has revealed to you which includes special revelation also right we'vewe've on other occasions of we we've spoken to the issue of there not being a situation where natural revelation was ever meant to function on its own beginning with Adam and Eve in the garden right so that the special revelation the natural revelation are interrelated and mutually reinforcing and mutually interpretive and that that's something that I think we need to be reminded of even in this conversation that yeah that's very good and I think that speaks to what dr. fresco was saying that we would want to affirm about the two books of Revelation the book of nature and the book of Scripture and we're we're wanting to give a hearty Amen to that as as Van Til certainly did affirming both books and and even even making sure going going to pains to make clear that the two are interrelated intimately with one another of course with with the book of special revelation having an interpretive priority over the book of natural revelation and so we ought not to see these these two books as sort of just standing side by side and disconnected from one another that would be the dualism Van Til you could disagree with this but that Van Til seasoned Thomas Aquinas and what we're wanting to say is that no the two aren't standing parallel to one another without touching but quite on the contrary the book of special revelation is the authoritative interpreter of the book of natural revelation correct very good so on this point then Jim I want to give you again the opportunity to speak to the comparisons between Barton and Van Til just to offer some context and help us understand of course we need to know that the until is a person who was one of the earliest if not be or earliest critic of Bart in the English language and also he wrote extensively against Bart nevertheless there's a there's a frequent comparison and a linking of Bart and Van Til on this point of natural theology and natural revelation how would you distinguish between the two and where would Van Til will be critical Abart and where might we say there there is a legitimate comparison if there is one yeah thank you for that that's kind of the wheelhouse questions that I love like to receive so I appreciate that the I think first of all actually dr. fresco does a really good job I think of tracing some of the historical theology that's in the background standing behind people like in the reformed camp Doyle beard and then in the in the mainstream or the mainline camp like Carl Bart sort of this rejection of natural theology natural revelation there's sort of a Calvin against the Calvinist historiography that's developed into the 19th and then eventually into the 20th century that kind of feeds into that and I think that dr. fresco does a really good job of of tracing that out for us setting the backdrop of Bart's rejection of natural theology so now and again dr. fresco does a really good job of describing why it is that Bart rejected natural theology or natural revelation and of course there's this there's this famous infamous maybe debate between Carl Bart and Emeril Bruner on the question of of things like common common grace common notions natural theology natural revelation natural law etc and of course Bart everywhere pronounced an unequivocal 9 no 2 to anything natural and again dr. fresco does he's absolutely correct when he speaks of Bart's Christo monism now that needs to be qualified if you're a bart scholar you have to kind of give that 100 points of qualification but I think that that's right it is a Christo monism and even to the extent that really bart has no place for natural revelation or natural theology within his system and what gives rise to that is it really is the liberalism that he parts of the liberalism that he rejects when he protests against his liberal professors which I which place or identify God and his being and the knowledge of God within the subjective experience of man of absolute dependence upon God Schleiermacher right so that's that's that sort of natural approach to apologetics and of course Bart rejected the discipline of apologetics as well and he did so because he was reacting against the the Liberals of his day who were trying to give an apologetic for the Christian faith on the basis of that which is which is natural that which is which is human on the basis of anthropology and so that was something that Bart wanted to utterly reject and he did utterly consistently reject that in place of a Christocentric or Christo monastic approach to theology that wants to begin with Christ and God's act in Christ and now when you move to vams hillside Van Til is very different than Bart in in many many regards obviously Bart Van Til wants to be Christocentric he Van Til is a Christian Thea logan and he believes that we must do apologetics as christian theologians we don't we don't put our Christianity on the shelf for a little while to try to build a blockhouse defense of the faith with the unbeliever whereby we we try to convince the unbeliever of certain things that they can sign on - apart from the Christian faith and then build up to the existence of God so in that sense there people see commonality between Van Til and Bart because both of them are wanting to be distinctly Christian theologians now we're obviously they they depart at many points but you know relevant to our discussion let me just give one the one point where where they disagree and we've been saying this all along is with regard to Van tills view of natural revelation and natural theology Van Til does not reject natural revelation and natural theology as such he rejects a certain approach to those things but he doesn't reject them as such and he qualifies them in a way that is in keeping with the reformed tradition as we've been talking about so that's a little bit of a thumbnail thanks for them now you know we only have so much time in an episode like this and we want to continue the conversation and I do want to acknowledge that dr. Fusco raises many many different issues and he it's a it's a thorough book and there's a lot of topics he also speaks quite a bit about a worldview thinking and the effects of and the tradition after the Enlightenment so we appreciate that conversation and we hope to maybe talk about some of those things in the future and in interaction with dr. fresco but before we do run out of time I do want to raise the issue of historical theology and I do want to raise the prospect of an issue event studying Van Til and also understanding the the treasures that we have now with the post-reformation reform dogmatix and all of the the studies that have come forth in the 80s and 90s and and now even into the present day there are so many things that are now become available to us and there's so much more scholars that has happened since 1987 there really has been we're very thankful to dr. Muller to dr. Fusco to others who are translating and interacting with a lot of these works I'm tremendously appreciative of that and so I as a van Tilian I want to acknowledge that one I don't think Van Til was unaware of many of the scholastic concepts the reformed scholastic concepts the interactions we definitely know that Van Til was tremendously indebted to to gearheart his boss we understood that and you know he would have worked through Davos as dogmatix and bosses salad on these things dr. fresco has another essay that we could talk about a different day speaking of Voss and Van Til on some of these scholastic issues but at least I would like to throw out there for the the matter of conversation and to get some feedback for you brothers but I don't think Van Til was was unaware or that he didn't understand these categories and I don't think that he would have been opposed to many of the things or that have been presented or uncovered but certainly I think with the benefit of 30 or 40 years of scholarship on the reform scholastics maybe he would have worded some things differently maybe he would have interacted in different ways and so you know perhaps he wouldn't have used the word scholastic in such as pejorative way which was common for his time and because he's referencing namely and specifically a version and an understanding of Thomas Aquinas and the school men Calvin did similar things talking about the school men but you know there could be nuanced better ways I think for us to still develop reformed and specifically even Ave Antillean apologetic from within the context of this of the benefits we have with greater scholarship and so I think that that's at least a point or an area that we could converse on and I think a little bit of a benefit of the doubt to Van Til to say that perhaps some of his books might have looked or some of his passages might have looked a little bit different if they were to be written in 2019 instead of 1950 1953 the what I was going to say is the use of the word scholasticism without further nuancing your clear could be is problematic because the fact is that scholasticism can be divided between Roman Catholic Armenian Lutheran and oh yeah and so cineon but also even within reformed post-reformation reformed dogmatix scholasticism has there's a heist early scholasticism hi scholasticism late scholasticism and i think historically speaking of fair bit of dr. van tills criticisms of scholasticism would be targeted against the late scholasticism where enlightenment philosophers like christian both begin to and descartes Wolfe was a disciple of Descartes there their approach to epistemology begins to infiltrate Christian dogmatix and at that point I think van tills criticisms are legitimate but earlier forms of scholasticism may not be proper subjects of his of his criticism right and I do very I'm very sympathetic to Van Til I've I don't have a whole lot of I have no real substantial critiques but certainly I would acknowledge that he could write better in some passages and more we're clearly a more understandable the people who don't understand what he's getting at but I do think that if you if you do spend the time and and get into his distinctions and what he's actually saying I think it's tremendously rewarding and rich rich material and so you know can we have some quibbles with the way he went about something here or there perhaps but I think I think the work still stands and even on this side of much of the work we have on Protestant scholasticism I still think I still think Van Til Holt I still think it's tremendously beneficial but I for one I've resolved to in an over the years you know I've been reading a lot of the are reformed scholarship on these things and I'm growing tremendously but it's not causing the things I'm learning and the things I'm growing or causing me at all to to throw out my van Tilian apologetic I find that they inform them and bolster them in many ways yeah I'm the same way i mean when i was reading on John Owens methodology and in seeing the archetype back type distinction right and all that kind of thing I think that's fantail and so you see that Van Til is moving forward that the tradition he's bringing it into the area of apologetics where it hadn't been used before that's the new innovative aspect to his work but yeah I in all the reading I've done a Muller and others following in his train nothing has has bothered me or caused me to question the validity of Van tills approach and and quite the opposite its bolstered it in my opinion anyhow and from my experience so I think that what we're we're up against here is our definitions I mean depending on how you define terms like common oceans natural theology scholasticism it it either it applies to van tills attitude towards those things or not obviously there's a form of scholasticism that Van Til would would heartily endorse he now he didn't interact with a whole lot of the Reform scholastics so we don't have evidence as it were to say what his attitude would have been towards let's a turret in or towards Owen or whatnot because we have very little interaction with those authors by Van Til and so it's it's difficult for us to say one way or or another but if we're talking about scholasticism as it's been defined most recently within the Muller School as an approach or as a method of instruction of writing Apple Emma sizing etc there's there's nothing wrong with that at all in Van Til I don't think would have looks quite helpful at all in that regard yeah absolutely so I mean I think unless you brothers have some additional points to add I think that's at least a good start or beginning to interact on these issues I'm very thankful that we can talk about these things and appreciative that we can we can have a public discourse on these matters and again I would like to speak with dr. Fusco directly and so I'm hope to contact him and discuss on these matters and see what we could do moving forward but at least this intro I think will at least lay out some of the basics and from our perspective and provide a platform from which we can we can continue the conversation on many of these important matters so on that front of the book of course reforming apologetics retrieving the classic reformed approach to defending the faith by dr. J V Fusco published by Baker academic this year it's brand new you can get a copy that book you know wherever you find your reformed books it's out there so if you'd like to get in touch with us you have any feedback or comments or suggestions you can get ahold of us on the website through the comment thread you can also send us an email mail at reformed forum org or finally if you have to you can get us on twitter at reformed for them but I do want to thank everybody for listening and I hope you join us again next time on Christ the Center you

Channel: Reformed Forum

Views: 4,002

Rating: 4.9024391 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: rWkgBvYRCWA

Length: 54min 31sec (3271 seconds)

Published: Thu May 30 2019