"But systematics [Systematic Theology] helps ministers to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work" (Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (ed. William Edgar), 22).
Showing posts with label Systematic Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Systematic Theology. Show all posts
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Monday, October 8, 2012
An Introduction to Systematic Theology - Van Til - Chap. 3
Notes on Preface and Chap. 1.
Notes on Chap. 2.
So, what is the place of reason in theology? (And we ask this question understanding that there is a difference between the thinking and mind of a Christian and non-Christian, a difference between those in covenant with God and those in covenant with Satan, a difference between those regenerated with the Adamic consciousness restored and supplemented and those with their fallen, depraved, and non-regenerate consciousness that is not restored and is without supplement.) God is changing our minds so that “every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” and “we use our minds, our intellect, our reason, our consciousness in order to receive and reinterpret the revelation God has given of himself in Scripture. That is the proper place of reason in theology. There is no conflict between this reason and faith since faith is the impelling power that urges reason to interpret aright” (69).
Notes on Chap. 2.
Chapter 3 - Christian Epistemology
What is the function of reason in Christian theology?
Non-Christians fail to account for the effects of the fall upon human reason.
These are the noetic effects of sin; the effects of sin upon our
thinking and our minds. Human thinking, human reasoning do not exist as an
“entity apart from God.” Non-Christians error because they think human
reasoning is a valid starting point.
What is the object of our knowledge? “If we hold with Paul
(Rom. 11:36) that 'of him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for
ever,' we see clearly that the existence and meaning of every fact in this
universe must in the last analysis be related to the self-conscious and
eternally self-subsistent God of the Scriptures” (58). So, the only way our
thinking and reasoning will make any sense is if we remember that, “to have coherence
in our experience, there must be a correspondence of our experience to the
eternally coherent experience of God. Human knowledge ultimately rests upon the
internal coherence within the Godhead; our knowledge rests upon the ontological
Trinity as its presupposition” (59).
What is the subject of our knowledge? Nothing is mysterious
for God, for “God as the absolute Light is back of the facts of the universe.
We hold that the atom [insert any mysterious thing about reality] is mysterious
for us, but not for God. . . . non-Christian thought argues that, because man
cannot comprehend something in its knowledge, to that extend his
knowledge is not true. Christians say that we as creatures do not need to and
should not expect to comprehend anything fully. God comprehends fully, and that
is enough for us. God's full comprehension gives validity to our partial
comprehension.” Van Til continues by relating this to Christian worship: “When
a Christian sees the atom surrounded by mystery, he worship God; when the
non-Christian scientist sees the atom surrounded by mystery, he worship the
void” (61).
Creator. Creature. Acknowledge you are the latter, or kick against the goads and attempt to be the former: “All men are either in covenant with Satan or in covenant with God” (68). Those who are in covenant with God have their “Adamic consciousness restored and supplemented, but restored and supplemented in principle or standing only” (69). Those who are in covenant with God “confess their ethical depravity” and can “discern spiritual good” because God has regenerated them.
Creator. Creature. Acknowledge you are the latter, or kick against the goads and attempt to be the former: “All men are either in covenant with Satan or in covenant with God” (68). Those who are in covenant with God have their “Adamic consciousness restored and supplemented, but restored and supplemented in principle or standing only” (69). Those who are in covenant with God “confess their ethical depravity” and can “discern spiritual good” because God has regenerated them.
So, what is the place of reason in theology? (And we ask this question understanding that there is a difference between the thinking and mind of a Christian and non-Christian, a difference between those in covenant with God and those in covenant with Satan, a difference between those regenerated with the Adamic consciousness restored and supplemented and those with their fallen, depraved, and non-regenerate consciousness that is not restored and is without supplement.) God is changing our minds so that “every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” and “we use our minds, our intellect, our reason, our consciousness in order to receive and reinterpret the revelation God has given of himself in Scripture. That is the proper place of reason in theology. There is no conflict between this reason and faith since faith is the impelling power that urges reason to interpret aright” (69).
Thursday, October 4, 2012
An Introduction to Systematic Theology - Van Til - Chap. 2
Continuing to read through Van Til's An Introduction to Systematic Theology.
Notes on Preface and Chap. 1.
Chapter 2
Our method of systematic theology is foundational. Van Til says that Christian theism "has a methodology quite distinct from other general interpretations of reality" (27).
Nothing is neutral. This includes our methods. Christian theism presupposes the existence of God. Our initial position, our starting posture is founded upon the God who is there.
The God who is there has always existed. He existed before the world. A world that He created ex nihilo. God is God and we are part of creation, therefore, God is incomprehensible to us (but he is not incomprehensible to himself). "Man's inability to comprehend God is founded on the very fact that God is completely self-comprehensive. God is absolute rationality." To be more specific, the Triune God is full rationality. The Trinity has exhaustive knowledge. Nothing is a novelty to the Trinity. This God, the Triune God, reveals himself to the creation. By way of special revelation the Triune God reveals himself to the image bearers.
Man does not have comprehensive knowledge. A Christian theist believes in the Trinity and knows that in order to have any knowledge it must be analogical to the knowledge of the Triune God. "The distinguishing characteristic between the very non-Christian theory of knowledge, on the one hand, and the Christian concept of knowledge, on the other hand, is therefore that in all non-Christian theories men reason univocally, while in Christianity men reason analogically" (31). By this Van Til means that non-Christians assume that space, time, man, and God are on the same plane, and that God and man are correlative, both working beneath a higher system of logic, etc. That is false. God existed before everything created; God is "self-conscious and self-consistent" and the created beings (creation) "cannot furnish a novelty element that is to stand on a par with the element of permanency furnished by the Creator" (32). To elaborate, "Christians believe in two levels of existence, the level of God's existence as self-contained and the level of man's existence as derived from the level of God's existence. For this reason, Christians must also believe in two levels of knowledge, the level of God's knowledge, which is absolutely comprehensive and self-contained, and the level of man's knowledge, which is not comprehensive but is derivative and reinterpretative. Hence we say that as Christians we believe that man's knowledge is analogical of God's knowledge" (CCS emphasis) (32).
"As man's existence is dependent upon an act of voluntary creation on the part of God, so man's knowledge depends upon an act of voluntary revelation of God to man. Even the voluntary creation of man is already a revelation of God to man" (34-35).
Van Til, therefore, calls our method for systematic theology a method of implication. "It is really only the Christian who can speak of implication, because no one but him really takes the idea of an absolute system seriously" (35). This method of implication may be referred to as transcendental, but not in the modern philosophic sense. It is a transcendental method because God is the method's point of reference. "It is only the Christian who really interprets reality in exclusively eternal categories because only he believes in God as self-sufficient and not dependent upon time reality" (36).
This analogical knowledge is theological knowledge. Analogical knowledge makes God the point of reference, and all other knowledge and methods make man himself the final point of reference. Analogical knowledge is the only true Christian position or approach to true knowledge--"When consistently expressed, it posits God's self-existence and plan, as well as self-contained self-knowledge, as the presupposition of all created existence and knowledge. In that case, all facts show forth and thus prove the existence of God and his plan. In that case, too, all human knowledge should be self-consciously subordinated to that plan. it's task in systematics is to order as far as possible the facts of God's revelation" (42-43).
Systematics does not, however, attempt to make an exact delineation point-by-point of the doctrine of the knowledge of God. That is not the point of systematics. If you collapse the sign of human knowledge into the signified (God's knowledge), you break the proper relationship between the creature and the Creator. It would no longer be derivative but one in the same, "And when this dependence is broken man's knowledge is thought as self-sufficient" (43). The method of systematic theology must be harmonious with the world-reality of the creature conducting the method, a creature (servant) who's life and knowledge is derivative.
As John Frame put it, a servant-thinker is one who “adopts God’s world as his own." Therefore, “the believer [servant-thinker] . . . is affirming creation as it really is; he is accepting creation as the world that God made, and he is accepting the responsibility to live in that world as it really is" (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 28). That is our method of systematic theology. A method of implication, a method of transcendence, a method that accepts the creation of the world that God made.
Notes on Preface and Chap. 1.
Chapter 2
Our method of systematic theology is foundational. Van Til says that Christian theism "has a methodology quite distinct from other general interpretations of reality" (27).
Nothing is neutral. This includes our methods. Christian theism presupposes the existence of God. Our initial position, our starting posture is founded upon the God who is there.
The God who is there has always existed. He existed before the world. A world that He created ex nihilo. God is God and we are part of creation, therefore, God is incomprehensible to us (but he is not incomprehensible to himself). "Man's inability to comprehend God is founded on the very fact that God is completely self-comprehensive. God is absolute rationality." To be more specific, the Triune God is full rationality. The Trinity has exhaustive knowledge. Nothing is a novelty to the Trinity. This God, the Triune God, reveals himself to the creation. By way of special revelation the Triune God reveals himself to the image bearers.
Man does not have comprehensive knowledge. A Christian theist believes in the Trinity and knows that in order to have any knowledge it must be analogical to the knowledge of the Triune God. "The distinguishing characteristic between the very non-Christian theory of knowledge, on the one hand, and the Christian concept of knowledge, on the other hand, is therefore that in all non-Christian theories men reason univocally, while in Christianity men reason analogically" (31). By this Van Til means that non-Christians assume that space, time, man, and God are on the same plane, and that God and man are correlative, both working beneath a higher system of logic, etc. That is false. God existed before everything created; God is "self-conscious and self-consistent" and the created beings (creation) "cannot furnish a novelty element that is to stand on a par with the element of permanency furnished by the Creator" (32). To elaborate, "Christians believe in two levels of existence, the level of God's existence as self-contained and the level of man's existence as derived from the level of God's existence. For this reason, Christians must also believe in two levels of knowledge, the level of God's knowledge, which is absolutely comprehensive and self-contained, and the level of man's knowledge, which is not comprehensive but is derivative and reinterpretative. Hence we say that as Christians we believe that man's knowledge is analogical of God's knowledge" (CCS emphasis) (32).
"As man's existence is dependent upon an act of voluntary creation on the part of God, so man's knowledge depends upon an act of voluntary revelation of God to man. Even the voluntary creation of man is already a revelation of God to man" (34-35).
Van Til, therefore, calls our method for systematic theology a method of implication. "It is really only the Christian who can speak of implication, because no one but him really takes the idea of an absolute system seriously" (35). This method of implication may be referred to as transcendental, but not in the modern philosophic sense. It is a transcendental method because God is the method's point of reference. "It is only the Christian who really interprets reality in exclusively eternal categories because only he believes in God as self-sufficient and not dependent upon time reality" (36).
This analogical knowledge is theological knowledge. Analogical knowledge makes God the point of reference, and all other knowledge and methods make man himself the final point of reference. Analogical knowledge is the only true Christian position or approach to true knowledge--"When consistently expressed, it posits God's self-existence and plan, as well as self-contained self-knowledge, as the presupposition of all created existence and knowledge. In that case, all facts show forth and thus prove the existence of God and his plan. In that case, too, all human knowledge should be self-consciously subordinated to that plan. it's task in systematics is to order as far as possible the facts of God's revelation" (42-43).
Systematics does not, however, attempt to make an exact delineation point-by-point of the doctrine of the knowledge of God. That is not the point of systematics. If you collapse the sign of human knowledge into the signified (God's knowledge), you break the proper relationship between the creature and the Creator. It would no longer be derivative but one in the same, "And when this dependence is broken man's knowledge is thought as self-sufficient" (43). The method of systematic theology must be harmonious with the world-reality of the creature conducting the method, a creature (servant) who's life and knowledge is derivative.
As John Frame put it, a servant-thinker is one who “adopts God’s world as his own." Therefore, “the believer [servant-thinker] . . . is affirming creation as it really is; he is accepting creation as the world that God made, and he is accepting the responsibility to live in that world as it really is" (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 28). That is our method of systematic theology. A method of implication, a method of transcendence, a method that accepts the creation of the world that God made.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
An Introduction to Systematic Theology - Van Til
Beginning to read through Van Til's An Introduction to Systematic Theology. The plan is to jot down brief thoughts, quotations, etc. I do not intend for this to be a review per se, therefore, it will probably be a fragmentation of loose thoughts.
Preface
This book is a published syllabus that "has an apologetic intent running through it. A Reformed theology needs to be supplemented by a Reformed method of apologetics. This involves relating the historic Christian position to that of modern philosophy, as well as theology" (12). Author admits his indebtedness to Louis Berkhof, Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper.
Chapter 1
Systematic theology seeks to teach truth about God taught in the Bible in a unified system. Theology is about God, that is, the Trinity, therefore, it theology should be God-centered (contra Barth's Christomonism).
Ministers need to be students of the Bible and systematics. "But systematics helps minsters to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work" (22). And, "Well-rounded preaching teaches us to use the things of this world because they are the gifts of God, and it teaches us to possess them as not possessing them, inasmuch as they must be used in subordination to the one supreme purpose of man's existence, namely the glory of God" (22).
Commenting on modern antithesis, "The fight between Christianity and non-Christianity is, in modern times, no piece-meal affair. It is the life-and-death struggle between two mutually opposed life-and-world views" (22). We must know our systematics because "When the enemy attacks the foundations, we must be able to protect these foundations" (24). Therefore, ministers and theologians must "undertake [their] work in a spirit of deep dependence upon God and in a spirit of prayer that he may use [them] as his instruments for his glory" (25).
Preface
This book is a published syllabus that "has an apologetic intent running through it. A Reformed theology needs to be supplemented by a Reformed method of apologetics. This involves relating the historic Christian position to that of modern philosophy, as well as theology" (12). Author admits his indebtedness to Louis Berkhof, Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper.
Chapter 1
Systematic theology seeks to teach truth about God taught in the Bible in a unified system. Theology is about God, that is, the Trinity, therefore, it theology should be God-centered (contra Barth's Christomonism).
Van Til clearly believes in doctrinal development. However, for this to occur the exegetical and systematic work must be accomplished up front, leading to additional clarity and precision to the creeds of the church. Doctrinal development is invalid if it is "retrogressive", a stripping away creedal tenets.Exegesis takes the Scriptures and analyzes each part of it in detail. Biblical theology takes the fruits of exegesis and organizes them into various units and traces the revelation of God in Scripture in its historical development. It brings out the theology of each part of God's Word as it has been brought to us at different stages, by means of various authors. Systematic theology then uses the fruits of the labors of exegetical and biblical theology and brings them together into a concatenated system. Apologetics seeks to defend this system of biblical truth against false philosophy and false science. Practical theology seeks to show how to preach and teach this system of biblical truth, while church history traces the reception of this system of truth in the course of the centuries (17).
Ministers need to be students of the Bible and systematics. "But systematics helps minsters to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work" (22). And, "Well-rounded preaching teaches us to use the things of this world because they are the gifts of God, and it teaches us to possess them as not possessing them, inasmuch as they must be used in subordination to the one supreme purpose of man's existence, namely the glory of God" (22).
Commenting on modern antithesis, "The fight between Christianity and non-Christianity is, in modern times, no piece-meal affair. It is the life-and-death struggle between two mutually opposed life-and-world views" (22). We must know our systematics because "When the enemy attacks the foundations, we must be able to protect these foundations" (24). Therefore, ministers and theologians must "undertake [their] work in a spirit of deep dependence upon God and in a spirit of prayer that he may use [them] as his instruments for his glory" (25).
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Bad Postmodern Models by Christians
From William Edgar's Introduction to the Second Edition of Van Til's An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God:
Various post-evangelical Protestants espouse their own versions of these schools [Christian alliance with kinds of post-Kantian views, that is, postmodern philosophy]. Stanley Grenz was drawn to postmodern models advocating, as he did, a christological center and a "non-linear" outline for redemption, over against the older creation-fall-redemption ground motive. The problem with such accommodations is that they are not able to relate the human creature with God the Creator in objective categories. Lacking a true theology of the Creator-creature relationship, they cannot assert the historical nature of the fall into sin from the state of integrity. And because of this they cannot fully appreciate the moral revolution that led to the fall, and so the problem in the human condition is not so much moral guilt as it is finitude, at least to some extent. As a result, redemption is not fully of God's mercy, with a transition from wrath to grace in history, through Christ. Instead they must grope after divine liberation, turning revelation into a project of the self, rather than seeing it as God's merciful self-disclosure to fallen humanity (3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)