LISTEN TO CLIPS OF MY SHOW ON XANGA

Currently Reading The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace By John C. MTdaille see related

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Visit http://thepaleocrat.com to find out.

VAN TIL: CONCLUSION: SOLA SCRIPTURA

Not unlike many of my other promises, I have been quite slack in making good on my vow to finish this series on Van Til and his belief that presuppositionalism was philosophically and theologically at enmity with Catholicism. Thus far we have seen that he was wrong on a number of counts. In some areas he appears to be ignorant, in others disingenuous. In any case, my final contribution to this matter concerns authority, and I will be particularly dealing with his contention that Sola Scriptura is an essential component of presuppositionalism.

In Defense of the Faith, Van Til states:

“Rome knows of no absolute authority such as Protestantism has in its doctrine of Scripture.”

This doctrine he is speaking of would, of course, be none other than Sola Scriptura.

In Christian Apologetics he says much the same:

“Rome simply has not the materials with which to build a really Christian concept of authority. A truly Christian concept of authority presupposes that in all he does man is face to face with the requirements of God.”

While I have other entries dealing with the general concept of authority, God’s determinative will, and His control over the affairs of man, I will confine myself to the passages pertaining to his steadfast contention that Sola Scriptura is a necessary precondition for the presuppositional method, as it alone can provide for a truly Christian concept of authority.

The novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura, born at the time of the Protestant Revolution, has shown itself to be riddled with problems, all of which have serious ramifications on the Protestant (if I may speak of them as a single body) notion of authority. Listing them off would do us well.

1. The canon. On the one hand, Protestant scholars cannot declare with any force that the canon is infallible. In fact, in the book entitled Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, a collection of essays from notables such as R.C. Sproul, James White, John Armstrong, Sinclair Ferguson, and Joel Beeke, the concession was made that the canon was fallible! Yet on the other hand they wish to say that this admittedly fallible collection of no more and no less than the 66 books is the ultimate authority for all faith and practice, and that it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to question it, much less add or subtract from it. That is, in essence, paramount to saying that one cannot cross a boundary marker that may or may not be wrongfully drawn up.  

Consequently, the Protestant is unable to explain how his or her view of the canon is in any way binding on the conscience of another. A good friend recently reminded me of a remark I used to make in regards to this dilemma. I would say that Protestants are fallible men fallibly interpreting a fallible collection of what they hope and pray are infallible books. This is true to a fault.

At issue here is whether or not a Protestant can impose the canon of 66 upon the conscience of another. They admit that it is a fallible collection, their having already ripped out a number of books from its binding seems indicative of the idea that men have within themselves the ability and right to disregard those books they believe to be short of inspired or contradictory to their understanding of various doctrines. But as with many other things, Luther and Co. were able to invoke privileges no other Protestant has been permitted to invoke ever since. Any attempt at such insubordination is reason for expulsion.

2. The MSS. When dealing with manuscripts, searching for the most ancient and reliable, one cannot but laugh at the irony. While Protestants may love to lambast Catholics for hatred of the Scripture, and most of them believe it abandoned the faith a few hundred years after the death of St. John (and I am being generous here), the MSS they rely upon were written, by and large, during the period where apostasy ran rampant. On what grounds does the Protestant believe that the priests, monks, and hermits handling the transmission of the texts didn’t tamper with them? Protestants are forced to rely on the honest scholarship of “Bible hating, Pope honoring, Mary adoring” apostates.

3. Interpretation. Aside from the canon and the manuscripts, interpretation causes a serious problem for both the Protestant and the presuppositionalist. While their may generally recognize the authority of Scripture Alone, they lack any internal mechanism by which to interpret its contents in any universally binding fashion. They may, and do, come to what they believe are accurate conclusions. They believe they are staying true to the intent of the author. They would, by necessity, believe what they believe to be not only true, but the main or only way any given issue can or should be believed. The problem is that every Protestant with a differing view on any given matter believes the same thing. While these would be too numerous to count, their being as numerous as the sands of the sea, a simple look in a Church directory would give us a sound indicator as to how far the ecclesiological pluralism and hermeneutical relativism has spread. Suffice it to say that such a query is disheartening even for the most starry-eyed ecumenist.

4. Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up? There has been much debate over the years as to what exactly Sola Scriptura is, what role (if any) the ecclesial body plays, the role of catechisms and creeds, etc. We have also seen the advent of the term Solo Scriptura to distinguish one school of thought from another. Either way, confusion runs wild. Some go as far as to deny that they have ever properly understood Sola Scriptura, and only recently are they beginning to really grasp the true meaning of this doctrine. Worse yet, one is at a loss as to how, once Sola Scriptura is given a satisfactory definition, any Protestant will then declare his understanding to be the one and only (or even best) understanding over against rival positions. For to treat Protestantism as a single entity would be absurd.

Let us return again to the issue of whether or not Sola Scriptura is an essential component of presuppositionalism. Let us also ignore but for a moment the difficulties posed by the above reflections. For the sake of the argument, let us concede that this is what they believe and that they shall not budge. Now let’s play the part of the devil’s advocate.

The Protestant presuppositionalist presses the atheist against the intellectual ropes. He asks time and again whether or not the atheist can account for X, Y, or Z from their espoused worldview. They prove effectually that the atheist cannot. Then what? They insist that the Christian worldview and it alone can account for X, Y, and Z. The atheist could, and should, ask on what authority that Protestant’s take on “the Christian worldview” in binding. The reason being that “the Christian worldview” as defined by the Protestant presuppositionalist is derived, by and large, from his interpretation of the Scripture. As such, it faces the difficulties mentioned above. In the end, the Protestant presuppositionalist is forced to say that it is his understanding of the Christian worldview is based upon a fallible man’s fallible interpretation of an admittedly fallible collection of what he hopes and prays are infallible books.

The burning question is whether or not the Catholic is in the same leaky boat. I dare to answer in the negative. Catholicism has within itself the means by which to resolve these difficulties. Thanks to our position on the infallibility of the Church, we can rest assured that the canon is as infallible as the text is inerrant. Our knowledge of how meticulous the priests, monks, and hermits were in translation and transmitting the manuscripts, coupled with our belief in the divine providence of God, leads us to trust in the integrity of the documents. And our dogmatic appeals court along with the doctrine of the Church's infallibility provides us with a knowledge of what can authoritatively and universally be said to be the Christian worldview. In short, Catholicism, not Protestantism, has the preconditions necessary for answering the every powerful "By what standard?"

In conclusion, Van Til was wrong. He was wrong on many counts. His understanding of the Catholic faith was shoddy, and the scholarship in his printed material is evidence of this. But worst of all is that he had a mistaken understanding of the very school of apologetic thought he is espoused to have championed. His not being able to see the achilles heel of Sola Scriptura and the way that doctrine would (and does) paralyze his entire method is remarkable.

Do I believe that presuppositionalists will buy my arguments hook, line, and sinker? No, not at all. In fact, I readily accept that many of them have chosen, for one reason or another, to ignore this matter altogether. But it is my prayer that some of them will see that, as Sarah Hodges righfully pointed out, presuppositionalism finds its home in the Holy Catholic Church, and that outside of her walls the method is unable to account for the necessary preconditions of its own utility.

VAN TIL: PART FOUR: CREATOR-CREATURE

Before moving on to Van Til’s treatment of Scripture and Authority, I think it wise to briefly discuss his remarks pertaining to Catholicism’s understanding of the Creator-Creature distinction. I say briefly for a few reasons. First, his remarks are few in so far as they relate to how Catholics do or do not understand the concept. And secondly, his few remarks were nothing short of bare assertions, lacking any kind of substantiation, much less a single citation. For these two reasons this post should be much shorter than the others in this series.

I will only here deal with one remark. It sums up, in a beautifully simple fashion, his (mis)understanding of the Catholic position. He says this in Christian Apologetics:

“It [Catholicism] does not make the Creator-Creature distinction basic in its thought.”

There are very few things that could be further from the truth, and I am in no mood to seek them out. A familiarization of the Missal, the Liturgy, and the role of the Mass in Catholic thought would have done wonders here. The distinction is the underlying assumption of the Mass. It is, from the Judica Me to the Last Gospel, calling to mind the vast chasm between the Creator and the creature, as well as the Victim whose sacrifice brings these things together. Even the gestures we make towards the Altar and the Tabernacle display a deep-rooted understanding of this fundamental distinction. Once again, familiarization with the Mass would have done wonders.

Note that I said that Van Til would have benefited from familiarizing himself with the role the Mass plays in Catholic thought. This was quite intentional. The Mass is remarkably different from Protestant gatherings in that we see it as more than a retreat into the schoolroom or reservation, but a microcosm of Catholic piety and thought. It contains and dictates how we view God, man, reality, authority, knowledge, and ethics. In short, we may find in the Mass a great summation of the Catholic worldview. Consequently, it doesn’t permit of any way of thinking which contradicts or is not in harmony with the Mass. It is for this reason, as I have already noted that he would have done well to familiarize himself with both the Mass and the role it plays in Catholic thought.

Lastly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is quite clear about the distinction between the Creator and the Creature and the role it plays in Catholic thought. In #199 we are told that the affirmation “I believe in one God” is:

“… most fundamental. The whole Creed speaks of God, and when it also speaks of man and of the world it does so in relation to God.”

Here we have the Creator-Creature distinction as “most fundamental” when understanding God, man, and the world. In fact, this is of such great importance that there is an entire section, worth quoting at length, entitled “Catechesis on Creation.”

“[282] Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life; for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic questions that men of all times have asked themselves: ‘Where do we come from?’ ‘Where are we going?’ ‘What is our origin?’ ‘What is our end?’ ‘Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?’ These two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.”

In all fairness, Van Til may have had in mind the fact that Catholicism “blurs,” or so Protestants say, the functions of God with those of man and operations of God with those of the Church. But this should hardly be seen as problematic in light of our position of secondary causes. Certainly the Protestant should agree! God has dominion, and yet most all grant that we participate in that dominion. God is King of Kings, yet he anointed and appointed Kings. Christ is called the foundation of the Church in I Corinthians 3:11, yet the apostles are referenced as the foundation in Ephesians 2:20. The same could be said of Christ called Shepherd of the Flock in I Peter 2:25 while Acts 20:28 refers to the apostles as shepherds of the flock. Prophet, Priest, King, and everything in between, we see cooperation and incorporation of secondary causes. These things wrongfully diminish the Creator-Creature distinction only in so far as one holds to a heretical position concerning God and his use of secondary causes. For those who hold an orthodox position, such so-called “blurring” is a non-issue.

One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate how Van Til understood the religion he so viciously attacked. His writings show him to be as presumptuous in his pronouncements as he was harsh in his criticisms, and this is saying quite a bit. But when all is said and done, what is there to prove? That he was a heretic and an enemy of the Church? Is it to demonstrate how he, all hype aside, was rather shoddy in his scholarship when coming to the Catholic controversy? No, these aren’t ends in and of themselves. The point of this is to demonstrate that presuppositionalism is not only harmonious with Catholicism, but that Catholicism, and it alone, can provide the necessary preconditions wherein presuppositionalism is possible. This will, I hope, be demonstrated in my next post; for it is my position that the Protestant’s defense of the method stands or falls on the matters of Scripture and Authority, and that their positions fall on their own claims.

Currently Reading Ethics and the National Economy By Heinrich Pesch see related

VAN TIL: PART THREE: NATURAL MAN & KNOWLEDGE

“[Romanism] grants the essential truthfulness of the non-Christian theory of man and his method.”

So said Dr. Van Til. To a certainly degree he was correct. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #36 would declare:

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

It would appear that the Church teaches that man, without the assistance of grace, can come to a full knowledge of creature, the created order he lives in, and the Creator who brought all into existence. Fortunately, as with most other things, this is not left without an accompanying context.

For starters, let us not forget what was already said about the role of God’s grace in our earthly existence. It is foundational and prior to all things, including our knowledge of Him. In like manner, we must look at the qualifying factors trailing this assertion.

Number 37 under "The Knowledge of God according to the Church" says that:

“… man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone.”

A Protestant may scoff at the word “alone.” To their dismay, the Church would qualify this as a matter of “strictly speaking,” going on to say that this is only possibly given the fact that we are:

 “[41] All creatures bear[ing] a certain resemblance to God… [being] created in his image and his likeness.”

Furthermore, we live in created order overseen by a:

“[37] … personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence and the natural law written in our hearts…”

In recognizing the various obstacles between reason and a complete knowledge of God, the Church insists that:

“[37] … The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the sense and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequence of original sin.”

So here we have man, created in the image of God, being born into original sin, to such a degree that it impacts how he sees himself, the world around him, and the Creator. What, then, is needed? The answer should be rather obvious: grace. We read in CCC 38:

“This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also ‘about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.’”

Still, one may insist that this does not satisfy the difficulty. What of those so-called “secular” matters? Does the Church grant intellectual autonomy over those areas?

Van Til summed up the Catholic position this way:

“[Romanism doesn’t believe infidels] need the light of Christianity to enable them to understand the world and himself aright. He does not need the revelation of Scripture or the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order that by means of them he may learn what his true nature is.”

Is this so? Yes and no, and each to a degree.

If by “the light of Christianity” he means the idea that someone has a personal and conscious knowledge of the institutional religion known as Christianity, then he is quite correct. To deny as much would be to run headfirst into Romans 1:15-32 as well as Romans 2:13-16. The former says that they knew this from the “creation of the world” and the “things that have been made,” where the latter says that they “do by nature what the law requires” while not having the codified law within Scripture.

On the other hand, if he assumes that Catholics believe humanity can have a complete knowledge of both man and the world without seeing man and the world as God sees them, then he is incorrect. Man relies upon the faculties God endowed him with. Man, being able to do nothing apart from grace, sees himself and the world around him aright only in so far as it corresponds to how God sees them.To the degree it differs from how God's sees them, man sees them incorrectly. It is all a matter of degree.

A Protestant must look no further than our encyclicals for proof of this. In these great works of the Roman Pontiffs, we have numerous declarations that would, if we would have them to be sensible, presuppose the notion that man is duty-bound to see himself and the world around him in the manner that God would see them.While these are taken from encyclicals specifically dealing with social theory, one would be blind not to see the ramifications they have on man, the world, and knowledge.

In Pope John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra, we have him saying”

“[215] Separated from God a man is but a monster, in himself and towards others; for the right ordering of human society presupposes the right ordering of man’s conscience with God, who is Himself the source of all justice, truth, and love.”

The Blessed Pope goes on to say:

“[217] The most perniciously typical aspect of the modern era consists in the absurd attempt to reconstruct a solid and fruitful temporal order divorced from God, who in, in fact, the only foundation on which it can endure.”

Once again, Catholic Social Theory (CST) concerns man, the world, his purpose, vocation, knowledge, and authority. In fact, one could say that it deals with all things, from the least to the greatest. Having said as much, they are quite relevant.

Pope St. Pius X wrote this in E Supremi written in 1903:

“[8] … it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. To this, then, it behoves Us to devote Our care – to lead back manking under the dominion of Christ.”

In Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI proudly insisted:

“[138] We are confident there will come that longed-for and full restoration of human society in Christ.”

Lastly, while not an encyclical, Pope Pius XII's 1942 Christmas message concerning the Internal Order of States and People is worth noting:

“The origin and the primary scope of social life is the conservation, development, and perfection of the human person, helping him to realize accurately the demands and values of religion and culture set by the Creator for every man and for all mankind, both as a whole and in its natural ramifications… A social teaching or a social reconstruction program which denied or prescinds from this internal essential relation to God of everything that regards men, is on a false course.”

The consensus above should be clear. God is the center of all things, he is the beginning and end of all things. We must, to see things aright, live and think in such a way that reflects the knowledge he has of us and the purpose he has for us. Anything short of this "is on a false course."

In the final analysis, it appears that Van Til is all bark and no bite. Contrary to his claims (being read by Protestant presuppositionalists with as little scrutiny as he put into writing them), Catholics believe that man relies upon God’s grace for his knowledge of the truth and that man’s knowledge of the truth is only true in so far as it corresponds to God knowledge of any given matter. Simply put:

1. We are creatures in a created world that reflects the Creator in all things.

2. Our purpose is to bring all things back into restoration with Christ

3. This is done through the working of the Holy Ghost and our seeing the all things as God sees them.

What many claim to sound Van Tilian is starting to sound awfully Romish! Ah, it’s been Romish all along…