Nov 6. 2003

These are conversations I had with folks on Yahoo's Bible Exegesis  e-mail discussion list. They demonstrate why I believe Cornelius Van Til was not a Christian. Post numbers 510 and 511.

You = My remarks
Me = The other fellow's remarks
DBC = Death Bed Conversion.
Text with no >'s are my further remarks and responses.

__________________________________________________________________

To Jim C......

On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:38:14 -0400 j.......@........ writes
> Jim K,
> You:
> I did not actually say that.  But based on what I know of his
> writing and
> some who follow him who I have talked with,  at this present point I
> would not consider him as such.

I did some research last not Jim.  I'll say it.  Unless VT had a DBC he
perished. See my post to Joel.

> Me:
> Again, how do you know that he was not regenerate?

Because he denied that the Jesus Christ of Scripture came in the flesh.
The christ he preached was another jesus.  The true Christ never taught
the doctrines VT taught and John says that if anybody does not abide in
the doctrine of Jesus Christ he does not have God.  2 John 9.   That's
how I know.

> Were you able to
> see into his heart?  Who are you to judge such things.  The man was a
> godly Christian.

Who are you to judge a heretic as a 'godly christian ?  Were -you- able
to "see into his heart"?  The Bible is clear that we judge saved and lost
based mainly on a man's doctrine and VTs doctrine denied Christianity.

> You:
> However I am certainly wide open to
> being shown that he knew and believed the Christian gospel.  As I
> say I
> do need to do more reading here... or someone like yourself could
> give
> insight etc...

> Me:
> Read anything he has written, he explains the gospel just fine in
> all he has written.

So far what I have read of him -denies- the gospel.  Again see my post to
Joel. 

> You:
> But I will say this;  anybody who says the Bible is
> paradox  "probably"  does not really know what truth is all about.

> Me:
> 1.  I'm not sure where you getting this "paradox" thing from.

Any VTian I ever spoke with all say the Bible is paradox and it is the
result of VTs 'apologetics'.

> Do  you have a reference and/or context?

Yes.  From the same article I quoted in my post to Joel;  Speaking of VT
notion that truth is  'analogical'....

                           <<This faulty view of revelation and
                            knowledge, and the Van Tilian conclusion
                            that the Scriptures contain numerous logical
                            paradoxes (humanly irresolvable
                            contradictions), stem from Dr. Van Til´s
                            erroneous notions regarding logic. His
                            deprecation of logic, not just the misuse of
                            logic, but logic itself, is well known (15 ).
                            Hence, Drs. Bahnsen and Van Til are both
                            highly critical of Gordon Clark´s teaching on
                            God and logic (669-670). Astonishingly, Dr.
                            Van Til writes: "Extreme Calvinists think
                            they can show that the teachings of the
                            Bible can be related to one another in a
                            logically penetrable system" (659).
                            Apparently, then, the Westminster
                            Confession of Faith (1:5) is in error when it
                            speaks of "the consent [logical consistency]
                            of all the parts" of Scripture. This being so, it
                            would be, not only impossible, but also
                            sinful to attempt to harmonize and
                            systematize the teachings of the Bible. Dr.
                            Van Til and others branded Gordon Clark a
                            rationalist because he attempted such a
                            harmony and systematization (16 ).>>

I'll send you the article if you like...

title; Van Til´s  Apologetic:   Readings and Analysis   by Greg L. Bahnsen

> 2.  I can assure you, he knew what truth was about.

And I can assure you that I am very handsome... ask my wife.

> For Van Til, Scripture provided the only
> foundation for
> establishing truth.

Reference please ?  And remember what VTs view of truth was.

> 3.  Some pastoral advice: your critiques of  people
> who you do not know and who you have not read should be more
> charitable and gracious.

I agree... but I burned the midnight oil last night.  VT was a heretic.

> You:
> Then how in the world could I possibly  know even as also I am known  ?
> That alone tells me there is -equality- in knowledge.

> Me:
> Again, the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah that His thoughts
> are not our thoughts, for His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

That verse is the exact same story as the Arminians hammering John 3:16
over & over.  That verse in no way supports VTllian doctrine.  The
psalmist said;

Ps 36:9 For with thee [is] the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

not an 'analogy' of it.  And of the wicked the Psalmist says...

Ps 49:19 He shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light.

VT would have to say of this verse... 'so what? Neither will the
righteous see light.  They will only see an  *analogy*  of it."  But
that's absurd.

> Jim,  there is no equality in our knowledge to that of God's.

Prove that from the Bible.  God syas I have the mind of Jesus Christ and
I am to bring every thought into captivity to Him.  How can I do that if
I cannot know the exact same truth Jesus Christ knows ?  Sorry I do not
believe that.

> Unless you are omniscient.  Are you?

non  sequiter Jim.  The fact that I am not omniscient does not prove that
I cannot know the same truth God knows and in the same qualitative way.

> We may know the same truths as God, but not  know
> them in the same way.  Thats all Van Til is saying.

Uh-uh...  He said that our knowledge and God's knowledge coincide at *no
point*.  That clearly means we cannot know what God knows in *any sense
whatsoever*.

> You:
> I admit I do not know all about a rose...  not even my wife for...
> that is he maiden name !   But I don't see how that proves that what I
> -do-  know of truth is not the exact same truth that God knows.  Otherwise
> we  must say that there are 'two truths'.  But that doesn't make sense
> because that would lead us ultimately to dualism.

> Me:
> No, no.  Not two truths.  One truth comprehended in two different  ways.

But VT denied we can 'comprehend' truth at all.

> We comprehend a given truth finitely, God comprehends it infinitely.

Well Jim I wholeheartedly agree with you here and I hope you continue in
that line of thinking because it is what Scripture teaches.  But VT would
never agree with you. In effect he taught that we cannot know the truth.
An 'analogy' of the truth is *not*  the truth.

> Simple as that.
>
> You:
> Maybe you could give an example or two....  along with some
> Scripture.
> If I don't see it in Scripture I won't believe it.

> Me:
> See above.

I will Jim....  I will !

In THE truth;
Jim K

________________________________________________________________

--------- Forwarded message ----------

Hi Joel;

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:27:49 -0400 (EDT) joel ....... <g.......@..........>
writes:
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 y....@........ wrote:
>
> > OK then how would you view these passgaes;
> >
> > Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> free.
> >
> > 1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from
> meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them
> which believe and know the truth.
>
> Just what they say, we know the truth.  But that doesn't mean the
> comprehensive truth as God knows it.

What's... 'comprehensive truth' ?  And what you say here was definitely
*not*  what Van Til taught.  What he taught was that we cannot know truth
at all.  Of course he never put it that way... that would have exposed
him for the heretic that he was. but see below...

> It means, first of all, that  we  know God and God is truth, even though God is beyond > knowing in  another  sesne.

I think you are talking about the distinction between 'qualitative'  and
'quantitative' knowledge.  If so then I would agree that we cannot nor
will we ever come to know God quantatively for in that sense we would
have to 'become God'.  But in terms of 'quality'  our knowledge of truth
is equal to God's.  But this is  definitely  **not**  what Van Til
believed or taught.  He taugh that our knowledge and God's knowledge
coincide at *no point*  either qualitatively or quantitatively. If there
is  ***no point***  of contact by us with truth itself then we are  L O S T
because salvation means knowing God and knowing His truth...
*qualitatively*... in the exact same way He knows it.

God is Light ladies and gentlemen and in Him is no darkness at all.  And
what does it mean to be a Christian?

Ps 36:9 For with thee [is] the fountain of life: in thy light shall we
see light.

Notice the verse does not say...  in thy light shall we see  -an analogy
of-  light.

Van Til's theology denies Scripture.

The following is from the book "Van Til´s Apologetic:  Readings and
Analysis"  by Greg  Bahnsen. The book is reviewed by  Gary Crampton.

< Third, there is the Van Tilian notion of analogy; that is, that all
human knowledge is, and can only be, analogical to God´s knowledge
(250-251). There is  **no point**  at which God´s knowledge meets man´s
knowledge (248, 255).>
[my emphasis.  This means there is  *no point* at which we can know the
truth. JK]

<Van Til is not just teaching that there is a difference in the quantity
of God´s knowledge and man´s knowledge (a belief with which all
Christians should agree), but that there is also a difference in the
*content*  of knowledge (248). Astonishingly, Dr. Van Til writes: "Man
could not have the same thought content in his mind that God has in His
mind unless he were himself divine">
[Bahnsen's emphasis]

Here Van Til obviously denies *any* point of connection either
quantitatively or qualitatively.  That destroys Christianity.  God is
light and salvation happens when one comes to the light... not an
'analogy' of it.

Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh
to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may
be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

not an  -analogy of-  the light !

In speaking of the content of Scripture Van Til says...

<Being based upon God's revelation it is on the one hand, fully true and,
on the other hand, at no point identical with the content of God´s mind.>
VTs introduction to inspiration and Authority of the Bible by BB
Warfield.

That's  not only a contradiction but it denies Christianity.  The Bible
say's Christians have the mind of Jesus Christ.  How can a Christian have
the mind of Jesus Christ and not have *any* point of connection to the
true knowledge of God... *in the same way Jesus Christ knows that truth*!

Furthermore we read in the Bible that Jesus Christ is...

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of
   his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he
   had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high;

as well as Truth Personified.  John 14;6  Now follow closely;  If VT was
right then that can only mean that Jesus Christ was not the true
"brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person"  but
Jesus Christ was only an....   *analogy* of it !?!?  What madness ! Jesus
Christ said...     I am  *the*  truth,  not  an analogy of the truth.
Therefore... Van Til  *denied*  that the True Jesus Christ of the Bible
came in the flesh.  He preached another jesus.

Sorry ladies and gentlemen... I do not believe that Van Til was a
Christian

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his
   thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy
upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

If the wicked are commanded to  *forsake his thoughts*,  and he cannot
know God's thoughts after Him  then what's left ?

Ps 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his
   heart to all generations.

How did the psalmist know what the thoughts of His  heart to all
generations were if he had  *no point of contact* with God's thoughts.  ?

Ps 40:5 Many, O LORD my God, [are] thy wonderful works [which] thou hast
   done, and thy thoughts [which are] to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned
up in order unto thee: [if] I would declare and speak [of them], they are
more than can be numbered.

 Ps 92:5 O LORD, how great are thy works! [and] thy thoughts are very
deep.

how did the psalmist know God's thoughts were 'deep' unless he knew what
those thoughts were ?

Ps 139:17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is
   the sum of them!

How can the Psalmist write these things unless he *knew*  what God's
thoughts were ?

Jer 23:20 The anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have executed,
   and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days
   ye shall consider it perfectly.

If our knowledge has **no point of meeting at all**  with the truth of
God then Christianity is the greatest hoax ever perpatrated on humanity.

> > I do not see anywhere in Scripture where this knowledge of the
> truth is
> > qualified in the way you have just described.
> >
> > Could you supply us with some passages of Scripture to your
> points.
>
> A quick sampling:
>
> "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his
> counselor?"
> Isaiah 40:13
>
> "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
> ways,' declares the Lord.  'For as the heavens are higher than the
> earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than
> your
> thoughts.' "  Isaiah 55:8-9
>
> "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God?  How
> unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways" Romans
> 11:33
>
> joel

Sorry Joel but none of those passages support VTs proposition that "There
is  **no point**  at which God´s knowledge meets man´s knowledge."

Unless VT had a DBC  he perished.

In The Truth;
Jim K.....

*************************************************************************

PROVE ALL THINGS