Scott Oliphint — Covenantal, Not Classical

thanks for your attention I know some of this can make the brain hurt a little bit yeah that's good exercise for us I think I hope you'll see what I'm what I'm trying to do here and I did this intentionally I think it's important where we are now in some of these discussions to be more deconstructive and so I'm what I'm trying to do is deconstruct some of what is out there in various circles and certainly in reform circles relative to apologetic method if you want the positive construction what what I was thinking was maybe you could just get my book and I'm not saying that to sell books I'm saying that's kind of where you would go after the deconstruction but there are various reasons why the deconstruction hasn't caught on as much as it should in reform circles so that's one of the reasons I wanted to give it some emphasis as I've said as I said previously that the the adjective classical might sound like something solid and traditional something that avoids the traps and tendencies of everything modern but what it means when you see it in by itself in and of itself it means atomistic which can be Thomas and then followers of Thomas and I think particularly the way the Romanist church has understood and interpreted Thomas so classical is woefully insufficient historically and theologically to use the word classical as to settle for less and I hope to make clear here fairly briefly that it takes the glory of reformed theology the notion of classical takes the glory of reformed theology and sacrifices it on the altar of Rome it's to take the pulpit out of the center of the church and move it to a marginal place fit for only a homily and to place the altar in the center again we're consistent biblical reformed theology is sacrificed over and over again you get the picture maybe so when you hear the word classical be aware my plea is that we take the adjective classical where they're attached to reformed theology generally to theology proper another popular place where you see it now - apologetics as I said take that and consign it to the dustbin for the sake of biblical and Theological purity clarity and fidelity if we use it we should be careful to speak of classical reformed theology so that reformed really does interpret what we mean by classical in other words again to paraphrase it is not good for classical to be alone it is in desperate need of a helpmeet to properly complete it if used it all it has to be paired with reformed theology and there the reformed has to govern what classical means so as I said my method now in the previous lecture and this one is primarily not exclusively as you saw but primarily historical and Theological and I chose this method because I think it's vitally important to see what classical means historically and theologically and to see whether or not it matches with the best the church has given us in reformed theology now parenthetically we could do the same thing if we wanted to think about the term Catholic which is now another way that people are speaking about reformed theology Catholic reformed theology we have to be very careful there as well now with that in mind I what I wanted to do this is partly selfish I hope you don't mind I hadn't looked at the book classical apologetics in a long long time so I decided to do was to take the book and to try to analyze it analyze the book classical apologetics in the with the background of the 16th and 17th century the book is over 30 years old classical apologetics but in my own experience questions I get most revolve around that book why the question is asked why is it then if covenant apologetics if fantails approach is the consistent outworking of reformed theology why is it that these reform guys don't go there I'm going to try to answer that to some extent this morning why it is before I do I want to say I want to say first and and make this point clear that I consider RC sproule a friend a friend of the Reformed faith one of the ablest communicators of that faith over the past 40 plus years RC does not wear a black hat like all of us he wears a grey hat tainted with elements that tinge the white purity of the theology that we all hold together so this is not a we're the good guys they're the bad guys this is a what sit down over coffee and discuss this in that light a number of years ago maybe 20 now when dr. Gerstner came to Westminster seminary to give the commencement address my charge my job when he was there was to tote him around I had to take him from place to place so it stuck with him he gave a seminar on campus and after the seminar he and I were supposed to go to lunch and then I was supposed to take him in the afternoon to our commencement so after his seminar I grabbed him and said where do you want to eat he said I want to eat i like to eat before I speak I want to go anywhere to eat I said well we've got a couple what do you want to do he said let's go in your office and talk apologetics at which time I became post-millennial it was it was an amazing thing I wish someone had been in the office with me because when I when I tell people how it went it's it's hard to believe but we had we just had a fantastic time he was he was a very humble gracious man and what really wanted to know genuinely wanted to know what apologetics people at Westminster thought about the things he had written and it was it was one of the highlights of my own time so dr. Gerstner now with the Lord are see these men are good men good Reformed men and able communicators of reformed theology so in my view we're talking about a little glitch here it's an important glitch not without its problems but it's a little glitch and that's the way I want us to think about it what I thought might be beneficial is to highlight what I take to be points of compromise that classical apologetics has with Orthodox reformed theology given its commitment to what they call a rational defence of the Christian faith which includes they're clear about this they're accepting and adopting of tomé ISM it ought to be instructive and I hope helpful to note how their tomé ism clashes with some of the most basic principles that informed and inflamed a radically biblical reformation of theology now in light of that what I thought might be useful to do for a number of reasons is to cite significantly now in these lectures the substantial Spade work of Richard Muller throughout this lecture I want to do that for a couple of reasons first of all at his best in my view Muller gives some extremely helpful information about what the Reformers were thinking sixteenth and seventeenth-century in some of these significant areas now let me be clear here Muller is no ventolin not even close he has no brief for covenant apologetics he wants more tome ism not less in reform thinking as far as I can tell when I read him his latest on contingency and necessity I think it's just out and that shows that clearly so when Muller is interpreting the Reformers 16th and 17th century he does not want I think this is fair to say he would not want those interpretations to to support what we're trying to do in apologetics but they do secondly given Muller's analysis it will be informative to see how widely divergent that which is purported to be classical is from our own Reformed heritage as a matter of fact it rejects classical apologetics rejects some of the best that the Reformation was able to provide for the church and that's really the problem that's that's the issue that I think needs to be discussed so let me start with a more general critique of the book classical apologetics a kind of critical overview of the thesis of the book and even though it's general that this critique really does set the stage and impinge on everything else that I want us to think about for a few minutes this morning so a general point but a central point is this classical apologetics page 101 the authors say at their classical best the theistic proofs are not merely probable but demonstrative and they're clear in the book that they want to argue for certainty not probability the authors are convinced that the proofs as classical offered demonstrative that is scientific certainty in their conclusions those of you who have heard RC speak on this as I have a number of times know that that's the case no probability allowed only certainty that's what they want the important point to see I think is that in the main this was not the not the view of the Reformers nor does it comport with the emphasis of the Reformation I could have given a number of citations I really had trouble trying to narrow these and they're much more that many more that could be quoted here but let me just give you a couple on the general point of the proofs as demonstrative which is what the classical apologetics book wants to maintain the general point of the proofs is demonstrative richard miller says that the reformed orthodox have a different you have the quote there a different understanding of the proofs than is found among the medieval doctors the rhetorical form indicates among other things that the primary force of the proofs is not so much to demonstrate as to persuade the opponent of the existence of God now that is a radical change from medieval thinking radical change we are outside the domain of demonstration why because it can't be shown scientifically given the problems of sin can't be you can't get from here to there given the problem of sin so instead of demonstration Muller's point is that the Reformers are interested in persuasion which is what he means by rhetorical the rhetorical force there's a persuasive force to it not a demonstrative force to it well we'll talk about that in a minute he says the reformed Orthodox version of the proofs therefore neither operates at a primary primarily theoretical level nor serves to ground their theological systems in rational foundation you see that this is Muller on the Reformers this is what they were reforming they're reforming the way the proofs are understood they're not demonstrative at best their persuasive certainly rhetorical you can say things that will resonate but the reformed Orthodox version neither operates at a primarily theoretical level all this media discursive nor serves to ground their theological systems in a rational foundation you remember I was saying the first lecture Nate natural reason revelation revelation grounded in what a rational natural reason foundation mother says not with the reform they ended they had to get rid of all of that they understood the problems he says the proofs are directed primarily against those who for a variety of reasons ignore the reality of God's power and grace in human life and act as if God were an absent deity you see it you see what's coming you see Calvin there don't you so our refer our reformed forefathers the proofs were not demonstrative they were rhetorical which means the reformed Orthodox recognized that the proofs did not give demonstrative scientific certainty relative to their conclusion they're not able to do that but instead they had embedded in them truths that could connect that could might connect persuasively to those who opposed Christianity how do they connect here's what Muller says sometimes I read these quotes that you think you're reading Calvin or maybe Van Til here's what mother says the form and function of the proofs of God's existence in the reformed Orthodox systems thus also provide evidence against the claim that this theology is a form of rationalism on the one hand these proof do not function as the Necessary and Proper foundation of the doctrine of God yeah I'm gonna pause on that one for a minute let that sink in for a minute we were talking about this last night over dinner how do you affirm God's simplicity if you reject Thomas well you affirm it the way the Reformers did by way of Scripture and the necessary consequences of Scripture especially with respect to how God named himself rather than through a natural reason method that requires some sort of Moana stick something that's how you form but that's another topic these proofs do not function do not function as the necessary and proper foundation of the doctrine of God they do not typically serve as they did in Aquinas as Summa as a demonstration of the ability of reason to point toward the same conclusion as is given by revelation and therefore of the ability of reason to venture into theological discussion that is a rejection of what I just read to you in the first lecture in Thomas's structure natural super Nets just now been rejected Muller said their primary purpose is to attack skepticism the proofs primary purpose is to attack skepticism and atheism on the basis listen to this police on the basis of a fundamental but non saving natural knowledge including the innate knowledge of God or immediate census Deven atados shared by all people this approach does not indicate the creation of an independent and or prior natural theology that's Muller on the 16th 17th century reformers and it is antithetical to the arguments in classical apologetics because Muller is showing us that the reformers had to radically revise what the medieval doctors and the ian's had done in the church especially in these areas so it's not that bent l's upset with the way classical apologetics argues it's that the reformed are upset with the way classical apologetics makes its arguments so it was the genius of Calvin as he organized his Institute's according to topics laid out in the book of Romans the genius of Calvin that had significant influence in the best of our reformed 17th century forebears the census of in etat is the knowledge of God sense of divinity was a theological truth that shaped and radically revised the Reformers assessment of the toe mystic proofs remember again it's not Van Til this is Muller and fan til says yes to all of it one more quotation here from Muller the Opera re order of the typical Orthodox reformed theological system rests on the testimony of God to his own existence you see what you see how radical that is I mean no wonder we're celebrating the five hundredth year of the Reformation I mean that these these people they understood it and the Providence of God by the grace of God they understood it rests on the testimony of God what to his own existence Muller says on a biblical a priori not rational now not opposed to read but not rest not natural reason but a biblical opry and not on the ability of the theologian to argue the existence of God not natural then revelational but biblical from the beginning mother says this model contrasts with Berman's Cartesian approach and in the course of the development of Orthodoxy with the fully rationalist approach found in the 18th century wolfing and systems in which the doctrine of God in Supernatural theology must be proceeded by the demonstration of God's existence in natural theology that's just loaded you can write a dissertation on that paragraph the wolffian said the rationalistic wolffian systems which is what's happening in the 18th century when Conte was awakened from his dogmatic slumbers he was reading Christian Wulff on metaphysics all right and and Muller is telling us that what the reformers had to do was tear away the foundation completely because the foundation was natural reason and insert in place of that foundation biblical truths from the beginning revelational from beginning so the general and central point is this a critical approach to so-called classical apologetics did not begin with Van Til or Bobby it was not been till who steered the Reformed Church away from Thomas and tome ISM the critique began as we might expect in the 16th and 17th centuries the Reformers recognized that the proofs could not provide what some had maintained they could they couldn't provide it because the condition of man was such that their cogent see was twisted inevitably twisted and perverted they couldn't provide it because reason could not produce according to its own laws the necessary conclusion they couldn't provide it because apart from revelation it's not possible to move from creation to an eternal infinite unchangeable trying God it's not possible to do that apart from Revelation so you can scream all you want to scream about contingency logically necessarily entails necessity but unless that logic and necessity is embedded in a Christian understanding of those terms it's just not true it's just not true there are many examples of that out there so without taking anything away from Van Til genius I never want to do because it was he did not invent his critique I'm not sure what Van Til read of the 17th century reformed I never asked him that question but I do know that his reading of bhava ink would have incorporated much of 17th century reformed theology quick perusal of bobbing stock Maddox recognizes significant influence from unius Van Maastricht pushes for MIG Lee and others so as Van Til gets to work on his apologetic he starts thinking through it and it was it was really his time at Princeton that caused him to do that among other things but that was one of them as he begins to work on his apologetic he has to leapfrog backwards over Princeton and what he received at Princeton they're compromising approach to apologetics and he has to plant himself back into the purest soil of Calvin and the Reformed Orthodox in the 17th century all right that's the more general point you can you can see I hope that what I'm saying is that classical apologetics the book is out of line not in sync with the Reformation itself in those areas and that's a serious problem so now from the general to the more specific high life that I've picked up that I chose to discuss in the way in which we understand what the three authors are trying to do in that book the first thing I want us to think about has to do with the self authentication or self attestation of scripture the more I thought about this in the context of reformed theology the the more I think this is central and crucial for anyone who wants to claim to be Protestant if you want to be proud of in a consistent way you must affirm the cellphone indication or self attestation of Scripture to the extent that you don't do that you're going back to Rome because Rome is clear you can't affirm it but the Reformers saw it you have to start somewhere you have to have a foundation and you either start with a church or you start with a Bible and you know where they ended up now if you look in the index of classical apologetics of the book under self attestation you'll see a mention of it on page 277 the only other reference is two pages 137 to 141 so you've got about four pages that purport to deal with it the discussion though would surprise you is it beers so directly away from what we would expect from Reformed authors instead they go about criticism a critique of circular reasoning it's a horrible thing in their eyes so they say this on page 141 at the end of their discussion of this they say getting away from these circles we resume our linear thinking the word first testifies to the spirit before the Spirit testifies to the word there is no circle here because when the word testifies to the spirit it has already been established as the Word of God by apologetics it is virtually granted that the Bible not assumed to be inspired contains generally reliable history I know that's what I thought when I read it if we move from this statement there's so much I want to say but I'm trying to conserve time here if we move from this statement from reformed people to another person calling himself classical Norman Geisler who ought to be classical because his theology lines up with Rome and in this area in this area I know this is on being stream not not all of it but in this area guy sir put the criticism this way same thing he says presuppositionalist claim this isn't a recent article erode presuppositions claim that the Word of God is self-authenticating it needs no proof it is the basis for all other conclusions but it has no basis beyond itself but what they fail to see is that while all of this is true of the Word of God nonetheless it is not thereby true of the Bible for there must be some evidence or good reasons for believing that the Bible is the Word of God it's utterly confused from a Protestant verse it's perfect for a Roman Catholic but from Protestant perspective uh Turley confused and then he says presupposition that's argue that the Word of God stands on its own with no need of proof beyond it the fact is that any such truth claim demands evidence and good reason the kind provided by classical apologetics right now if your if your theology is dr. geiszler says his is if your theology is Arminian then that's where you have to go you if you're if your theology is our many and you cannot be this should be obvious you cannot be reformed in your apologetic you don't have it the apologetics dependent on the theology if your theologies are many and you have to be classical and this is one of the reasons why Van Til to some people's many people's frustration he sort of lumps Romanist Catholics in with Armenians in these areas because they have the same basic view of who God is and who man is it's it's almost identical different views downstream and that's another thing we talk about but same basic views there and that's where Geisler is so you have to have evidence you have to have good reason you should we should expect such things from an armenian theology but not from reform people who ought to know better that's that's part of my frustration not from reform people want to know better so let me just point out a couple of I think substantial concerns here again in the interest of the adjective classical it's instructed to point out that when the reformed theologian gets purchase whooshes vo ET i us when foucha argued for scripture as foundational that is as a prank it beum he received a response critique from a roman catholic theologian by the name of Martin bikinis and the critique was entitled the Calvinistic circle in light of his assertion of the foundational status of Scripture foucha swooz accused of circular reasoning and the Romanist objection to foosh this was this I have it there you can see it your handout the circle of Calvinist theology consists in first proving the divine authority of the Bible by referring to the subjective testimony given by the Holy Spirit and then attempting to prove that this inner acknowledgment comes indeed from the Spirit of God by referring to the Bible now the point here I hope you can see is that this notion of circular reasoning which most out there would say they until invented this kind of circular reasoning which is so reproachful to the authors of classical apologetics is embedded in the history of reformed thinking about scripture it's there it's there from the beginning because every reformer knew you had to have a foundation you had to start somewhere where you going to store that's that's obvious in one of his disputations on the relationship of faith and reason pushes considers the fact of scriptures foundational status in light of the function of reason and in this dispute ation on the use of Reason in relation to faith foucha says no other principle or external means whatsoever that is distinct from scripture and prior superior either in itself or with respect to us more certain and better known exists or can be invented that is suit of to certainty to certainly and infallibly demonstrate to us the authenticity and trustworthiness of Scripture or to radiate by a clearer light than scripture itself radiates in other words it can't be reason and it can't be the church which is another way of saying reason it can't be it has to be scripture alone FUS just goes on to reject the notion that anything else could provide credibility to the Bible as our basic foundation primarily because anything else would assign ultimate credibility to the testimony of man in other words to ground and found the credibility of the Bible on reason on evidence on a rational demonstration on common sense as the authors want to do in classic apologetics is to assign ultimate credibility to that ground instead of to scripture attempting to invest those rational or evidential or common beliefs with some kind of foundational status and this the reformed would not do and could not do it and that's why you have that marvelous statement Westminster Confession 1:4 on the authority of Scripture depends on God not on the testimony of any man or Church and is to be received because it is the Word of God not because smart guys have proven it to be historically reliable even if not inspired not that good suppose that's the case suppose you've got smart guys and they prove it to be historically like historically reliable and then you say and it's inspired what is the content of that proof and what is the possibility of it changing at some point ok I've lined up seven reasons why you need to understand it evidentially and here they are okay I believe it it's as part and then two of those evidences for some reason or other or undermined by other evidence or something else has been found then what do you do you have to go back of course you have to go back because the foundation why you believed is the evidence and if you can if you can make the word self authentication mean anything and that kind of process I'd really like to hear what it means it's gone if that's the way you think about it cellphone ocation means it authenticates itself it doesn't mean somebody else authenticates it so now you accepted it self authenticating that's absurd she can't do that it's already been authenticated so now I can't don't anybody so John Owen was charged as he puts it by the Papists he was charged with circular reasoning John Owen he didn't know Van Til as far as I know they hadn't met living in different places different times here's what Owen says we cannot say the Papists know the scripture to be the Word of God by the testimony of the Spirit for either it is public testimony which is that of the church and if this be granted they have enough or it is private testimony but then they say it will follow that our faith in Scripture is enthusiasm that if the private testimony of the spirit be questioned it cannot be proved but by the scripture and so the scripture being proved by the spirit and the spirit again by the scripture we shall run in a round which is no lawful way of arguing that could have been plucked out of Owen and put into classical apologetics remembers the Papists talking these are what the roman is say to us to Protestants you're running in a circle how dare you so Owen is accused by the Papists by the then classical theologians he's accused with running in a round reasoning in a circle but but because of his genius he turns the tables he says it's really the Papists who run in a vicious circle he argues that Rome is caught between two different motives of faith neither of which improve the other without the same time contradicting itself as the motive of face so he says and indeed they do plainly run into a circle in there proving the scripture by the authority of the church and the authority of the church again by the scripture for with them the authority of the church is the motive or argument whereby they prove the divine authority of the scripture and that again is the motive or argument by which they prove the authority of the church and so both the church and the scripture are more known than each other and yet less - more known because they prove each other less known because they are proved by each other dismantled right there one paragraph Owen did it you want circular Ruiz I will show you circle that's what Owens do you think I run in around check this round this will make you dizzy that's what he's saying the papal round is the real round if you're going to run circularly how about starting with Scripture what God has said rather than starting with what the church says you ought to start with I don't think the authors of classical apologetics recognized that in the reformed tradition there was already a debate significant debate about circular reasoning and that the Reformers came down with Westminster Confession one for that's where we have to stay you've got no other option either Scripture has its own Authority or someone gives it that authority the one that gives it that authority is the foundational authority by definition all right so self authentication self attestation scripture attests to its own Authority which by the way doesn't mean there are no arguments so Westminster Confession 1:5 gives a list of what those arguments could be but the arguments have to do with the character of Scripture they're not arguments from outside and now we believe that their arguments we believe it and look why we believe and why wouldn't you believe it that's that's how the arguments proceed from one four to one five there's discussion I think you probably know in classical apologetics of Romans 1 and I'm relatively sure I think he told me this that that section is one that RC Road and in at the end of that discussion they list ten assertions an assertion nine is this as you have it on your handout general revelation yields a knowledge of God from nature a natural theology and then as they conclude their assertions they say this if people do in fact have a knowledge of God from nature then a natural theology is possible and here they want to argue that immediate natural theology refers to a direct operatory knowledge of God implanted in the mind by God okay not bad but do we want to say that the knowledge that we have by virtue of natural revelation that is God revealing himself in and through all things that are made do we want to say that that knowledge itself is natural theology well we have to be careful with our terms it has been called that historically and currently but typically when we're talking about the theological Enterprise that's something we do and the revelational Enterprise is what God does so if we know God by virtue of natural revelation we need to be really careful that we don't see that as our concluding by virtue of who we are that God exists that's the theological enterprise earlier on in their book the right of natural theology this way they say natural theology which is derived from general revelation stands as a polar opposite to fede ism and and you know the word fede ism that's that's us that's been till let's me so natural theology derived from general revelation is a polar opposite defeatism where natural theology asserts that people can and do gain valid knowledge of God by means of natural reason reflecting upon natural revelation fede ISM asserts that God can be known only by faith that sound familiar valid knowledge of God by means of natural reason reflecting upon natural revelation is that sound like yeah there's Thomas there he is showed up again they're clear about that they think Thomas was right on that so maybe the authors would want to say that they're speaking here of Mediate natural theology something mediated discursively demonstratively not immediate just given sort of a priori but that qualification isn't made in this quotation to argue that the knowledge of God that is implanted by God through creation is natural theology begins to move in the direction of we do the right thing with what God gives us in creation with the knowledge that he implants in us we think of it properly it's a long history of this I'm sure you're we're aware of Michael's Sudduth wrote a book reformed objection and natural theology it's it's pretty good if you can sift through the philosophical jargon he gets it I think about right that that of course natural theology is possible but only for the regenerate if it's going to be true theology any natural theology it's not done by the regenerate is false we'll talk about that a second so now given the proofs for God's existence here's what Muller says again I just want you to see this I'm using the historical data here to try to prove the point that classical might not be reformed mother says elements stick five ways that's Thomas's five ways to prove the existence of going elements of the two mystic five ways are used in rhetorical rather than in formally demonstrative argue okay we saw that in a previous quotation he say it says it here again given moreover that God has been identified as the Principia a sin D that is the foundation of existence of theology the nominal Ito most posterior arguments arguments on the basis of evidence since experienced empirical data no longer assume that God is not per se nota that is known of himself not self-evident do not assume that God is not something rather this is this is Mahler rather in a structure of argument that is profoundly an Taito mystic the arguments assume that God as prank epyon as foundation is both self-evident and in demonstrably in demonstrable meaning you can't get from here to there you can't develop a proof that will conclusively demonstrate in and of itself the existence of God that's what he means by in dimanche all right do you see that so so Muller is saying that the reformed 16th or 17th century they rejected Thomas's argument that the existence of God is not self evidence and of course it's self-evident because God makes it self-evident you want you want to know how you know the terms of the proposition God exists it's as self-evident God makes sure you know the terms proposition you know God suppressing the unrighteous to be still know it you have to know it to suppress it that's what Miller says he goes on to argue that for the reformed natural theology and super natural theology both he says quote arise as revealed knowledge revealed knowledge not as a matter of mere human discovery and there goes natural reason right out the classical window furthermore says molar although the reformed Orthodox discuss and even elaborate natural theology and a manner quite different from the theological efforts of the reformed the basic Reformation era understanding of the limits of natural knowledge of God and therefore of any attempt to formulate a natural theology clearly not tow mystic in its implications for the use of philosophy and reason in theology or in its denial of analogy between God and creation carries over into the theology of the reformed Orthodox including its ambivalence about the value of the purely philosophical doctrine of God as creator all right sometimes it's hard to read Mulder it's packed loaded but what he's saying here is that the reformed Orthodox and and the Reformers are in sync in this the basic Reformation era understanding of the limits of natural knowledge of God clearly not tow mystic in its implications for the use of philosophy and reason and theology clearly not Thomas t so so the point is when when the authors of classical apologetics say we're in the tradition because we're affirming unlike these sort of Enlightenment content type people like Van Til and part and Bruner these guys that have this phenomenal Newman oh we don't go there because we go all the way back to Thomas as reformed theologians and we're gonna affirm what Thomas affirmed and Muller is saying the Reformers didn't do that they understood you couldn't do that but they knew the structure had to be completely torn away and rebou molar goes on to argue in numerous places the only theology produced by those outside of Christ is what what the Reformers called it a logia falsi of false theology natural theology that is teh logi Avera true theology presupposes and requires an understanding and application of biblical revelation it's the only way you get to the tail Oogie Avera there's no way to do it otherwise and there go the proofs and there goes natural reason so with respect to Thomas's an alodia entus Thomas's analogy of being Muller says this virtually all of the formulators of protestant theology denied the Thomas Anna logia entus that is so crucial to see virtually all there might have been a debate here and there on it but as Muller says the formulators of what Protestant theology that's why to be Protestant you've got to be reformed if you're less than reformed as a Protestant you're moving back to Rome and you gotta move forward to Geneva don't go to Rome forward to Geneva into Scripture virtually all the formulators are Protestant theology denied the Thomas antelopian test and declared that no proportion exists between the finite and the infinite and further Muller says from iggly that's my anglicized way of pronouncing his name Verma Glee concludes that no matter how clearly God may be inferred from nature to be the creator it is nevertheless necessary to know God as creator by faith the article of creation is the first article of the Creed remove it from the articles of faith and the subsequent related doctrines including the doctrines of original sin in Christ will be unable to stand faith itself demands that we learn even of creation by revelation and a mother says vermigli thus explicitly sets aside the analogous entus of his Thomas teachers vermigli was a Thomas he was trained as a Thomas and then he became reformed and what's one of the first things he had to do he had to reject the analog un tiss the analogy of being because the analogy of being requires some sort of participation of the creature in go and that's a long history of that we can't get into here but they had to reject it there's a rejection of some of the foundational principles of tomé ISM I don't care we don't have to argue right now Thomas believe that not this and read this well won't know I said that but the church the Roman Church they were this is where they were and the Reformers are saying we can't have it we can't have it we have to reject it because because if you affirm the antelopian tests you are moving in X or oblique to a Roman understanding of God and creation of God and creation so so don't let anyone tell you a doctrine of God they wouldn't people in the problem the Reformation is all fine just leave it alone interested in Scripture justification doctrine God that's in place Thomas did that for us nope nope not if you reject the analog Yantis there's a serious problem in your doctrine God not if you think you can discover anyone can discover who God is that he exists and that it's one is Thomas so if you can discover that on your own anybody regenerate or not there's a serious problem with your doctor serious deadly serious destructively serious alright so that's the that's the second thing self identification in Scripture we have sensitive innit Otteson the way in which classical folks want to try to understand that and then this might be well it probably isn't but maybe in terms of its being so explicit the way in which they understand depravity total depravity it's very troubling very troubling and this this portion I have to know because he told me Gerstner wrote this portion these were some of the things that he and I were able to talk about in that office visit for two hours Goethe the book says classic apologetics page 216 Van Til confuses the sinners rejecting sound knowledge with not having sound knowledge therefore he represents the unregenerate as having and not having knowledge which is a little interesting to me because in classical apologetics they say elsewhere they recognize the exact same thing they see that there are passages that say pagans do not know God and they recognize that Paul says clearly in Romans 1 that all people dunno god so elsewhere in classical apologetics they say this to harmonize the Pauline passages all that is necessary is to point out that general revelation provides and produces a cognitive apprehension of God it does not produce intimate knowledge or saving knowledge that's on page 50 alright so Gerstner is over on page 216 saying you know Van Til contradicts himself do you know or not know you either know you don't know and 150 page pages previous the author said well yeah both Scripture gives both you know and you don't know so there's that I think that's a problem multi author problem but they should have read each other so you can compare you can compare Romans 1 1920 John 1 we've already discussed John 1:1 214 compare that with Galatians 4 8 1st Thessalonians 4 5 2nd Thessalonians 1:8 first John 4:8 you can see how this flushes itself out in Scripture unbelievers know god but not savingly so there's knowledge and there's not knowledge so that's a maybe a too pedantic a point but I think it needed to be said that the book itself seems to contradict itself more troubling though page 243 we suggest that classic Reformed orthodoxy saw the noetic influence of sin not as direct through a totally depraved mind but as indirect through a totally depraved heart I did ask dr. Gerson err and you'll have to trust me I'm not lying to you I said okay I read that to him and I said that's classic reformed orthodoxy yes where do you see it well I think there's a sermon in the Beinecke e-library at Yale from Jonathan Edwards where he that was all I could I'm not I'm not trying to belittle the man I just I wanted to know if it's classic I haven't seen it yeah and he'd read church historian had written much more than I had what what are the references I never got any I haven't seen it in direct total depravity what is indirect I'm indirectly totally to pray in in my mind it's good that I'm not directly totally dude or maybe it's not I don't know I don't know what ender I don't know what it is what does it mean well we get a hint of what it means a few pages prior to this in a discussion about vent ills assessment of unbelieving thought especially the use of our rational laws of thought as they like to talk about classic apologetics listen what they say but people do not necessarily consider themselves in opposition to God whose existence they do not even know at the outset they do not necessarily deny the divine being as Van Til insists they do people do not assert their autonomy against an initially known God as been till insists they do they simply operate according to human nature it's one reason I wanted us to look at Thomas in the first lecture I hope you can see it once you have a sort of neutral understanding of natural reasons so that everybody has it in the same way and he uses it in the same way this is where you end up I did point out again to dr. Gerson I said you know an RC did too did the material in Romans 1 a couple hundred pages back he said did Paul saying that people do know God and he said I need to talk to her see about that and I said well maybe this Paul's RC calls at a universal indictment of sin Gerson knows not Universal is not a diversion I said so when when Paul says they are without excuse it's not universal no it's not universal I said so does everyone else have an excuse he says now they have original sin yes we said I did not I haven't read that kind of theology I didn't that was foreign to me RC says that the universal indictment RC says all people know God then he unfortunately says therefore natural theology that's that's a bad conclusion but he's got that substance of it right stood there for that's the problem but now along comes dr. Gerstner and he says people don't know God at the outset they don't deny the Divine Being is day until insists they do they they don't assert their own they operate according to what according to as human nature human nature what is human nature I read somewhere that it's sinful I haven't seen it yet where it isn't even in my grandchildren who I would give the benefit of a doubt but it's there it's simple it's simple in direct opposition to this we're closing in now direct opposition to this Muller says this this this is one of the most amazing statements from Muller in all of his four volumes I think because of what it what it says in what it entails he's talking about prolegomena those things that we have to learn first as we're studying theology so basically doctrine of Scripture and how we think about that epistemologically etc he says these early reformed statements concerning theological presuppositions focus virtually without exception on the problem of the knowledge of God given the fact not only of human finitude of course we're limited but also of human sin the critique leveled please okay wake up now listen to this the critique leveled by the Reformation at medieval Theological presuppositions okay bracket that at two mystic epistemology that's what he means medieval theological presuppositions the critique level by the Reformers added a soteriological dimension to the epistemological problem that is they had to think about sin relative to know its noetic influence whereas Muller says the medieval doctors had assumed that the fall affected primarily the will and its affections and not the reason you know what that is indirect total depravity there it is it's in medieval theology your your mind is not directly affected your will is shame on you your heart is but your mind run with it we only affections and not the reason the Reformers assumed also the fallenness of the rational faculty and listen to this a generalized or pagan natural theology according to the Reformers was not merely limited to non saving knowledge of God he was also bound in idolatry you know what that means the interpretation of that is that the theistic proofs when done by one who is not regenerate produces an idol found in idolatry now here's mullahs point this is I mean Muller whatever criticism you have a Muller when it comes to 17th century he's omniscient it he has the gift of omniscience now that now that doesn't mean he interprets it you know in a way that I think is it's always the most useful helpful or maybe even true but but there's I you're hard-pressed to find something 17th century form of theology that he hasn't raised read at all every language all the time this what he does so he says this view the problem of knowledge is the single most important contribution of the early reformed writers - the theological prolegomena of Orthodox Protestantism indeed he says it is the doctrinal issue that most forcibly presses the Protestant scholastics toward the modification of the medieval models for theological prolegomena there's a lot of a lot of big words there but you see what he's saying that the Reformers came to the issue of prolegomena what is the epistemological structure when it comes to knowledge of God how how do we go about knowing God and how do we think about knowledge of God in a way that will be helpful in the church helpful in theology and helpful in apologetics Muller says the single most important contribution is the problem of knowledge and in thinking about the problem of knowledge all of the reformers mother says virtually without exception recognized the noetic effects of sin that there was no natural reason that was not at the same time radically affected by sin this is not in direct total depravity folks this is depravity to the core read Gavin's article on 1st Corinthians 2:14 histology nothing better out there it's in the Westminster Journal 95 spring and I think it's radical because the Reformers recognized there is no person or a faculty of a person that is not radically affected by sin it's not just the heart and indirectly the mind it's the heart and the mind and the will and the emotions and everything else are affected by sin Muller says this is the central central contribution of Protestant ci puts an Orthodox Protestantism so my contention is this you can't be classical in this way unless you're Roman Catholic because only that theology lines up with that apologetic method on methodology and if you're not going to be Roman Catholic you say I'm not gonna be Roman I'm going to be Arminian well then it's Roman Catholic but without all the church trappings you're still there theologically just there's not that much difference in terms of especially in terms of prolegomena so your option if you're going to be Protestant is to be reformed fully consistently reformed because then you are being as best we're able fully and consistently biblical but to be reformed and to hearken back to Thomas is to hearken back to Rome in their theological prolegomena not necessarily in the church although as many of you will know that has happened at southern evangelical seminary other places where Thomas has emphasized people start swimming the Tiber because they see there's got to be a consistency between what Thomas does metaphysically and what he does ecclesiastically and cetera logically Thomas didn't become a buffoon all of a sudden we talked about the church and he's just a brilliant genius when he talks about metaphysics he gets in the church I got that wrong no for him at all it all comes together alright so so it's it's it's one of those situations so it troubles me about it I think most one of situations where when that when the nose gets in the tent camel's nose gets in the tent you really are just so close to a full camel and you don't want to came on your tent it stinks so what I wanted to do here is give you a sort of historical analysis I hope you've seen that I've wanted to try to deconstruct as best I can with brothers who I think who I know are brothers in the Reformed faith like RC and others others who hold this view and to say to them you've you you really have you really have to get rid of this if you're going to be consistent just minimally if you're going to be consistent with our history that we love you're going to celebrate the Reformation it's time to put Thomas where Thomas belong back in the Roman Church you know let it let him do the theology back there because they don't they don't have that view of Scripture but if you're gonna have a view of Scripture that's self-authenticating self attesting and you come to the Bible that way and that's your foundation and you affirm Westminster Confession 1:4 you've got no other place to go but reformed theology and that will drive you inexorably to a reformed covenantal apologetic at that point now what do you begin to see you begin to see in a coven ental approach that it's not us moving ourselves to God from here to there from effect to cause but it's God coming down to us in order that we might know him it's the condescension of God that's the initiation of knowledge of God and not our observation of effects that's why it has to be covenant 'old God establishes a relationship he voluntarily condescends Westminster Confession seven one to do that voluntarily condescends establishes that relationship but in that relationship he says in and through creation by virtue of the law goes his son you will know me because you will be judged according to what you know and you're meant to image me that's what God says and then when the gospel is preached then people understand ought to understand how that revelation in creation connects with what God is revealing in Scripture they go hand in hand they always have they're always meant to all right so I'll stop there and we can have a little question answer if you wish okay a question about the analogy of being mahler pointed out that virtually all the Protestants rejected the analogy of being it seems like back of the doctrine of the analogy of being stands the doctrine of the derivation of essence in the eternal generation of the son seems like those two things are length linked as far as I know Calvin is the only one who rejected that doctrine of derivation of the essence and defined it in terms of derivation of person so I'm wondering if those two things are linked why the other reformers didn't didn't knows that if you have any thoughts on that yeah they have to be linked I think for those of you don't know the debate the debate centered around really Calvin's writing when he was being accused of being a civilian sometimes in Ariens he began to write more and more letters really most most of them not translated on the trinity and in in that writing he argued that while he was happy to sign on to the Nicene Creed in its affirmation that the son is God of God the only way he could interpret that phrase God of God is that the son receives his personhood from the Father but not his essential being as God so he's not God from God he's the son from the father is the way to understand it so Calvin's argument was there's no way in which the sons essence as God could be derived from the father or or given to the father if it is no matter how many times you want to say it's the same essence and that's what people's it's the same as theirs a misson no different no there is different it's the same essence but it's given with respect to the son and intrinsic to the father that's a difference anybody can see that's a different so Calvin would say that the son I mean his argument is ingenious because he says look the Sun is Yahweh in the Old Testament do you think I am Who I am derives his being as God from the father there's no way that could be can't be the case so he argues the son is derivative relative to his person not relative to his essence and the the essential derivation goes all the way at least back to Aquinas that has to have some impinging relationship on the analogy of being because now being is something that is derived all the way down to creation arts ontologically moves itself into creation itself so there are they're massive massive debates on the analog antis because Thomas didn't write a chapter on it's just kind of sprinkled throughout a lot of his his writing so that so the Thomas who have written books on it many many many books they're still not sure exactly what Thomas means by the analog un tiss in every way shape there's some they argue is it just logical there's a metaphysical there's only grammatical as it just had to do with our predication all the sorts of arguments are out there but whatever it is you only have two options with respect to the way you understand Thomas being Thomas says is a transcendental notion that is it encompasses everything that is and therefore the only thing that would distinguish that which is from another thing that is is what that thing is essentially so it essence is the limiting factor relative to the transcendental notion of being that's Thomas so then what happens with respect to the son where his being is distinguished by virtue of his being from the father that trickles all the way down into creation and guess what it also works itself back up in terms of participation in being now how do we know God we participate in God and and again Catholics debate what this means as Shawn look Mary on the French he wants to remain a Thomas the French Thomas has serious critiques of Thomas and he says Thomas got the notion of being all wrong and so he wrote this book God without being and he says I don't mean by that God doesn't exist I mean however he exists he exists so far transcendently above everything else was not what Thomas thought so far above that the only access we have to God is by virtue of guess what if you're a Catholic by virtue of the Eucharist you participate in God when you eat that flesh you don't get to drink the blood come any priest gets to do that but you but you get to eat the flesh and that's your participation why because there's got be a way to participate with respect to God if you're a Roman Catholic reformed version union with Christ see how easy it is but but they so they have this idea of participation all the way from the ontology into the history and I think that's where the scale of being comes from so you either have a scale of being or you have a completely equivocal notion of being like Marian says here's gods exist here's everything else there's no way to get from here to there unless you have some sort of mystical eat the flesh kind of idea we have two more one I was wondering if you might be able to relate this whole discussion to leonardo de Chirico's two pillar understanding of Roman Catholicism I would not be able to do that I don't know I haven't read he he argues that the whole Roman Catholic doctrinal system is based on two pillars one is that the church is an extension of the body of Christ and secondly that grace perfects nature mm-hmm and that everything that's distinctive about Rome depends on those two foundations interesting yeah he's probably studied that more than I have but just from what you've said I would say absolutely right there has to be a participation element relative to the church so it is the body of Christ I was raised Roman Catholic I can testify to you this is what I was taught this is what I had to believe when I was an altar boy and I held a little plate under the Chin's of all the people cuz they used to put the host on the tongue you had to hold that out so no crumbs would drop and the priest would say body of Christ and you'd have to say man stick out your tongue in the air so that's that's actual participation without which you cannot be properly related to God that's exactly right nature grace perfects nature is the suit is the structure I was talking about earlier as the you have reason nature and then grace comes along and perfects it but it doesn't radically transform it it just perfects it so that sounds exactly right to me I don't know the details of what he rides but I'll go back here are no hands we'll get to you Curtis and we'll go to lunch here in your teaching what reaction have you received from students who come from a Muslim and Hindu background and students who come from a Muslim and Hindu background in a relation to I'm reformed apologetics yeah or Muslim context not necessarily former Muslim context yeah the reaction is thank you very much now we can go back into our context and minister properly to these people we have people at Westminster from I think now 40 different countries and and if what we're teaching them and apologetics in theology and everywhere else is biblical and it's going to translate into any and every culture you don't contextualization doesn't mean change your theology so that these people might listen contextualisation means take biblical theology into that context so Lane and I both taught in Jakarta you know and when you're teaching and at that school the mosque next door you know at noon they're blasting out I mean it's you can hear they're blasting out that the prayers and these people recognize that if you understand the authority of Scripture and the and the power of Scripture and you argue on the basis of Scripture even debating who Christ is will you say this but our books that you know Christians say this if you begin to do that you're showing them why you believe from your own book even as they're doing and and I think they will begin to see and some do begin many have seemed Jakarta and elsewhere we can't hold this any more can't hold to it can't tell you a story yes I can because I'm up here when I was in Jakarta my wife and I we were both there and we were between week weekends we taught I taught a course and then before I started the other one they sent us to Bali that weekend which is like paradise it was just an amazing place and there was a student at the seminary this woman who was a student at the Seminary in Jakarta actually grew up in Bali so they had her to be in Bali that weekend to give me a tour of the island so you're moving from a Muslim Muslim concentration to Hindu at Bali in Bali so I asked her I said now tell me your story said well I was raised Muslim strict Muslim and she said I woke up one morning in this deep sweat and and terror because I realized that I was a sinner so she said I fretted over it for a while and I I finally went to my parents and I said there's something really wrong with me and and this Miss Muslim theology is not doing it for me and they said well try Hindu so very understanding parents I don't know you got some idols out there give that a whirl report back next week now this was dismissed deeply serious with her so she said so she did she tried that again getting nowhere and she was telling me as we're relating this story to me it's just fascinating she said then I've pretty much given up it was it was all I could do to get out of bed completely depressed I knew I knew I was wicked something deeply wrong and a friend of a friend of her said we're gonna have a little get-together out here at the beach why don't you come so she went and happened to be an American there and they got in the conversation and she said what do you what are you doing way over here he said I'm a missionary and he told her what the gospel was dropped her to the floor yeah that's what I'm that's what I've been needing the whole time so so what are you looking at there you're looking at the Lord Himself Romans 1:32 they know they know the decree of God that those who practice such things are worthy of death they know that that's part of general revelation so she wakes up and the spirits prompted her and so she's looking and she goes to this religion that and that religion and and what what changed her radically was hearing that Christ had done something about that terrible horrible condition season see now that's apologetics folks that's not just oh good event no that's apologetics because he's right there and a Muslim Hindu contact saying your only answer is Jesus she's saying absolutely right make a great story

Channel: Reformed Forum

Views: 8,958

Rating: 4.5259261 out of 5

Keywords: reformed theology, apologetics, christian

Id: J4FewNc7GDQ

Length: 77min 38sec (4658 seconds)

Published: Tue Oct 10 2017