Speaking Nonsense

To my horror, I just read Lane Keister’s New Year’s eve blog offering.  Here it is in its entirety:

This is from Berkhof’s Introduction to Systematic Theology.

The Word of God presupposes the darkness and error of the natural man, and would therefore contradict itself, if it submitted itself to the judgment of that man. It would thereby acknowledge one as judge whom it had first disqualified (p. 172).

In other words, reason cannot prove the trustworthiness of Scripture. This is because reason only comes packaged in damaged goods. Even the regenerate person still has sin clinging to his reason. How could any untrustworthy instrument prove perfection to be correct? To do that, we would ourselves have to be more foundational than the Bible. No, the Bible is our axiom.

It’s hard to imagine a more vicious attack on the integrity of the Scriptures and the Reformed system of faith than what Keister has written scream-75133566695_xlargeabove.  While Keister’s post exudes piety and humility, consider the reverse. If the Scriptures were irrational and violated the laws of logic, specifically the law of contradiction, would they still be trustworthy?  I don’t see how?  Yet, for Keister reason is not a tool by which we can discover the trustworthiness of Scripture and he confuses the laws of logic with errors in logic due to sin. Further, and what Keister seems to forget, while axioms cannot be proven, they can be dis-proven and if the Scriptures violated the rules of right reason then it’s hard to see how they could still be considered God’s Word.  The God of Scripture is not a God of confusion, Lane Kesiter and Louis Berkof notwithstanding.

Contra Keister (and Berkof) Gordon Clark argued:

…the law of contradiction cannot be sinful. Quite the contrary, it is our violations of the law of contradiction that are sinful. Yet the strictures which some devotional writers place on “merely human logic” are amazing. Can such pious stupidity really mean that a syllogism which is valid for us is invalid for God? If two plus two is four in our arithmetic, does God have a different arithmetic in which two and two make three, or perhaps five?  – An Introduction to Christian Philosophy

Speaking of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Divines’ belief in the logical consistency of all of Scripture, Clark notes:

The consent or logical consistency of the whole is important; for if the Bible contradicted itself, we would know that some of it would be false. – What Do Presbyterians Believe

And, finally, concerning the importance of the logical consistency of Scripture that attest to divine inspiration, Clark writes:

If, nonetheless, it can be shown that the Bible — in spite of having been written by more than thirty-five authors over a period of fifteen hundred years — is logically consistent, then the unbeliever would have to regard it as a most remarkable accident . . . Logical consistency, therefore, is evidence of inspiration. – God’s Hammer

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Heresies, Theology

60 Comments on “Speaking Nonsense”

  1. LJ Says:

    Scripture records Christ stating, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

    Please clarify for me, is Keister saying that due to our fallen state for all we know, or can know for that matter, is that the above statement may mean ” … he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting DEATH, and shall come into condemnation …?

    Are we incapable of judging, due to our fallen state, what the Bible states, plainly? Or, is it just the difficult stuff like the WMO or Common Grace where we cannot read and judge what is written?

    Surely he can’t mean that since, if so, there is NOTHING about the Bible that can be known with certainty. Surely he doesn’t mean that and I have misunderstood. Please explain.

    LJ

  2. blakodeel Says:

    Self-contradictory faith would be no faith at all, because then you would have no idea what it is that you are believing.

    “Even the regenerate person still has sin clinging to his reason.”

    That doesn’t mean that we ought to accept contradictions because we have puny brains. By accepting contradictions we would be knowingly believing contradictions, and therefore believe in nothing. Scripture being our axiom doesn’t mean that it is somehow aloof from logic and intelligibility. That’s stupid. Also, they have to use their mere human reason to come to the conclusion that it is acceptable to believe two mutually contradictory propositions. Since they use the laws of logic also, to use logic in order to say that our beliefs do not have to be logical, or that scripture itself (which is inspired by a logical God, logos) may be above rationality, is fallacious.

    “In other words, reason cannot prove the trustworthiness of Scripture.”

    If this means that we cannot begin with general ideas and then work our way to God like the ontological argument or cosmological argument, then this is perfectly valid.

    Clark’s fun because he has finally rid me of the pious irrationalism that I see everyone around me engaged in. God is the very origin and definer of logic, and to think illogically is a product of the fall, not religious worship.

  3. Sean Gerety Says:

    If this means that we cannot begin with general ideas and then work our way to God like the ontological argument or cosmological argument, then this is perfectly valid.

    Agreed, but Keister’s is not talking about proving God, but simply demonstrating the trustworthiness of Scripture. And, if Scriptures do not present to the mind a rationally coherent system of doctrine, I have to wonder what he thought he was vowing to uphold in his ordination?

    With men like Keister to think rationally is “rationalism” and sinful.

  4. blakodeel Says:

    When rationality is abandoned, it doesn’t even matter if they contradict their own irrational piety, since they have no reason to be consistent because to be consistent would be rational. Therefore it doesn’t matter if he hypocritically affirms doctrines that make sense while claiming scripture is valid even if it didn’t make sense. Anyhoo

  5. Steve M Says:

    I only hope that one day I can obtain such consistency in my reasoning that someone will accuse me of being a rationalist.

  6. Sean Gerety Says:

    What is really sad is that Keister in his praise of Berkof (after all he titled his blog piece, “Quotation of the Week”) purposely perverts and even mocks Clark by exclaiming that the “Bible is our axiom.”

    Who else besides Clark claimed the Bible as our axiom?

    Make no mistake, Keister remarks are calculated as he knows exactly what he’s doing. And, while his grasp of Clark is paper thin, his father, J.C. Keister, was a personal friend of Clark’s, in fact, he wrote a Trinity Review article back in 1982. Keister has some rudimentary and even a secondhand understanding of Clark.

    Besides, even if one were to posit a contradictory Bible, there is no evidence that he or the others at his blog believe it is their axiom.

    For example, Reed DePace argues:

    We begin with God. We don’t presume God exists because the Bible is true. We presume the Bible is true because God exists.

    Seems to me God, and not the Scriptures, is their axiom. DePace then goes into a discussion about circular reasoning completely oblivious to the face that he has just begged the question.

    There can be no knowledge of God and we could know nothing about Him apart from His self-revelation in Scripture.

    DePace then says something that is quite good:

    This is why the ministry of the gospel is never “positively” proving anything about God.* Instead it is declaring what is true, and leaving the issue of proof up to the subjective work of the Spirit of truth.

    However, what both Keister and DePace fail to grasp is that if the Scriptures in Berkof’s words “would therefore contradict itself,” we would in Clark’s words “know that some of it would be false.” Consequently, we could have absolutely no trust that what Scriptures communicates to us about God is true.

    This is one of the main reasons the gulf between Clark and Van Til can never be bridged.

    Van Til taught that all Scripture is contradictory and to think in submission to Scripture, to think “analogically,” is to accept and embrace contradictions.

    This is the heart of modern ersatz-“Reformed” Christian piety.

    Claiming the supposed contradictions of Scripture are only “apparent” and are instead “paradoxes” that are somehow resolved in God’s mind is also begging the question. Again, while these men present themselves as humble servants, they are really spitting in God’s face as they belittle and attack the perfection, the logical perfection, of His inerrant Word.

    Also, consider Berkof’s remarks again particularly in light of WCF 1:5

    The Word of God presupposes the darkness and error of the natural man, and would therefore contradict itself, if it submitted itself to the judgment of that man.

    The Confession says nothing of the sort. It states that there are many things that can move us to recognize that the Scriptures “doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God,” not least of which is “the [logical] consent of all the parts.” There is nothing in the Confession that even hints that Scripture would present itself either to the regenerate or unregenerate man as contradictory. The only caveat the Confession gives is that all these evidences on-their-own are never enough to induce a belief in Scripture. That requires “the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.” I see no reason why an unregenerate man couldn’t agree that the teachings of Scriptures “consent,” that is, logically cohere, yet not believe them to be the Word of God. Perhaps the biblical authors were just good story tellers.

    OTOH I see even less reason for a regenerate man to maintain that the Scriptures do not logically cohere. It’s hard for me to decide which is the worse sin.

  7. LJ Says:

    Sean: Who else besides Clark claimed the Bible as our axiom?

    Only GHC

    The WCF begins with scripture because the Westminster men were RATIONAL enough to know that G-O-D as a word has no objective meaning except by revelation. Reed DePace may think he begins with God, but what God? He knows not God but by God’s own revelation of himself breathed out in the scriptures, the Bible. The Keister group simply don’t understand how they know God.

    LJ

  8. Denson Dube Says:

    What amazes me with these men is their refusal to learn. I used to think an educated mind should be able to think rationally(allowing of course for human foibles). But these guys are something else!

  9. Sean Gerety Says:

    @Denson. I’ve thought about that a lot too and I think part of it is that to stand up against the present irrationalism puts them at odds with the mainstream of modern Reformed thought. Look at what Hoeksema and Clark went through. Just look at the amount of garbage being hurled my way for defending something so basic as justification by belief alone against the mystery mongers like Strange, DiGiacom, DePace, Henzel, Kesiter and the others.

    The professional religious class is completely dominated by irrationalists.

    For a guy like Keister to reject religious irrationalism parading as Reformed thought would threaten not only his standing among his peers, but his professional standing as well. I’m sure he wants to keep his job.

    This is nothing new and all you need to do is look back at the Trinity Foundation’s manifesto: A Program for Our Time. John Robbins wrote about this very problem and fighting it is the reason TF exists (much to the chagrin of the professional religious class).

    Consider this from Robbins:

    Contemporary secular intellectuals are anti-intellectual. Contemporary philosophers are anti-philosophy. Contemporary
    theologians are anti-theology. The irrationalism of the present age is so thoroughgoing and pervasive that even the Remnant—the segment of the professing church that remains faithful—has accepted much of it, frequently without even being aware of what it was accepting. In some circles this irrationalism has become synonymous with piety and humility, and those who oppose it are denounced as rationalists—as though to be logical were a sin. Our contemporary anti-theologians make a contradiction and call it a Mystery. The faithful ask for truth and are given absurdity. If any balk at swallowing the absurdities of the antitheologians, they are frequently marked as heretics or schismatics who seek to act independently of God.

    John wrote the above in 1978. I was only a year out of high school and had professed Christ for the first time in 1978, but since that time very little has change. In fact, it’s only gotten worse.

  10. Hugh McCann Says:

    Surely Lane means that, [fallen] reason [alone] cannot prove the trustworthiness of Scripture.

    Sadly, he didn’t say that, and I don’t see any clarifications from him at ‘baggins.

    But this is wholly problematic: Even the regenerate person still has sin clinging to his reason. How could any untrustworthy instrument prove perfection to be correct? To do that, we would ourselves have to be more foundational than the Bible. No, the Bible is our axiom.

    But Lane hasn’t gotten us out of our ‘sin-clung reason.’ Or shown how an ‘untrustworthy instrument’ can even receive and believe the Bible.

    We’re not ‘more foundational than the Bible,’ but its Author is, and his Spirit lives within the child of God.

    One with regenerate reason CAN receive the things of God, for they are not foolishness unto him, but are (only) spiritually discerned.

    As one wag there said,

    Green Baggins is convinced that the Holy Bible is trustworthy.

    Human reason cannot prove that the Holy Bible is trustworthy.

    Therefore, Green Baggins is not convinced of the Holy Bible’s trustworthiness through human reason.

    God could convince Green Baggins of the Holy Bible’s trustworthiness, but not by means of human reason.

    What means does God use to convince Green Baggins of the Holy Bible’s trustworthiness?

    Indeed.

  11. Hugh McCann Says:

    Oops – I failed to close the italicized quote above, after,

    …No, the Bible is our axiom.

  12. Sean Gerety Says:

    Thanks for sharing that here as well as on FB Hugh. As I mentioned on FB, I believe that “wag” is a Roman Catholic, but it’s a very good argument and is presented (at least in my mind) to Keister’s shame.

    Keister, following Berkof, has done a great disservice to the Reformed faith and the truth of Scripture.


  13. Yeah I gotta admit I read both Berkhof and Keister as saying the exact opposite of your description. Berkhof’s point seems to be simply that if man sees an apparent contradiction, then the problem lies with man (charley horse between the ears, anyone?).

    Keister used that as a springboard to remind readers that we can’t reason our way to the truth of Scripture, but we have to start with it. Sounded downright Scripturalist.

    See here for Berkhof on the logical, rational consistency of Scripture: http://sovereignlogos.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/berkhof-on-the-consistency-of-scripture/


  14. I don’t have the context of Berkhof to be certain, but when he said Scripture “would therefore contradict itself, if it submitted itself to the judgment of that man” he was not saying Scripture always appears contradictory (like Van Til would say). Rather, he was saying that if Scripture claimed that natural (!) man’s reason is darkened, AND that Scripture was subordinate to the reason of that man, THAT would be a contradiction. And he’s absolutely right, and Clark would agree. The unregenerate mind of natural, fallen man cannot be made to sit in judgment as a higher authority to which Scripture is answerable.


  15. Hugh’s link confirms my reading.

  16. Hugh McCann Says:

    The link I provided gives the reference made by Keister in context.

    Can’t say I disagree with you, Patrick.

    What say you, Sean?

  17. Anon Says:

    “Mystery Mongers” LOL!

  18. James Says:

    Hugh –
    note that Keister did not answer Sean’s question – the main question –

    “If the Scriptures violated the laws of logic, specifically the law of contradiction, would they still be trustworthy?”

    My reply: No. Not. A. Chance.

    so what about it Hugh – yes or no?

  19. Hugh McCann Says:

    Amen, James. And of course, they cannot.

    I still want to dialogue about your last two replies to me.
    Just got busy with the hols.
    If email is more apropos, I am at hughmc5 at hotmail dot com.


  20. James, who’s saying Scripture contradicts itself? A straw man, that’s who. Keister: “Let it also here be said unequivocally that I believe that all logic and infallible reason belong to God, and there is not one single contradiction in all of Scripture. Indeed, God, through Scripture, has given us the very source of logical and rational thinking.”

  21. Steve M Says:

    “James, who’s saying Scripture contradicts itself?”

    Does Keister deny that Scripture contains what cannot be distinguished (by regenerate men) from contradictions?

  22. Sean Gerety Says:

    I have to laugh. I just read the comments to Keister’s non-reply (again, spot on James) and aside from his blog being littered by apologists from the Roman chruch-state, Ryan Hedrich, a heretic who openly rejects and ridicules the Triunity of God has called me a “loose cannon.” 🙂

  23. Hugh McCann Says:

    Does Keister deny that Scripture contains what cannot be distinguished (by regenerate men) from contradictions?

    Does Keister assert that Scripture contains what cannot be distinguished (by regenerate men) from contradictions?

  24. justbybelief Says:

    I see a difference between Berkhof’s statement:

    …if [scripture] submitted itself to the judgment of that man.

    and, Kiester’s statement:

    In other words, reason cannot prove the trustworthiness of Scripture.

    Isn’t “reason” itself distinct from “the judgment of man?”
    “[T]he judgment of man” may be very unreasonable but it may not be unreasonable.

    As James points out, scripture is not above “reason” or the “law of contradiction.”

    I don’t believe that fallen man is necessarily hostile to logic per se but that fallen man is hostile to biblical assertions about Christ and biblical assertions in general.

    Eric

  25. justbybelief Says:

    I assume that Berkhof intended the “sinful” judgment of man. My assumption may be wrong.

    Eric

  26. LJ Says:

    @ Eric: “I don’t believe that fallen man is necessarily hostile to logic per se but that fallen man is hostile to biblical assertions about Christ and biblical assertions in general.”

    This is an excellent statement. It is the propositions, logically perceived as all propositions must be, stating Biblical truth that the unregenerate deny especially when they understand them. The unregenerate man has little problem with All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.

    But All men are sinners; Bertrand Russel is a man; therefore, Bertrand Russel is a sinner sticks in their throat.

    LJ

  27. justbybelief Says:

    Very clear! Thanks, LJ.

  28. greenbaggins Says:

    To answer James’s point, I will say this: if the Scriptures contradicted themselves, they would indeed no longer be trustworthy. We can DISCERN that trustworthiness by our Holy-Spirit-aided reason, but we cannot PROVE what is more axiomatic than our human reason. Why are the Scriptures trustworthy? Because I can prove that they are, or because God, the Author of Scripture, is a logical God? They are not trustworthy because I can prove that they are (I can’t). They are trustworthy because the God who gave them to us is trustworthy. That’s my point, and that’s all I was saying. I am not asserting what Sean says I am asserting. I serve a God of order, not chaos. A God who never contradicts Himself, because if He did, He would be telling a lie, and the Scripture tells us that God does not lie. All I am asserting in this comment, and in the original post is basic presuppositionalism, something Clark also agreed with, by the way. What Sean did in his post here was basic misrepresentation. I don’t recognize what I said or meant in any way, shape, or form in Sean’s mangling of my words.

  29. justbybelief Says:

    “We can DISCERN that trustworthiness by our Holy-Spirit-aided reason [a believer] .”

    However, one would not necessarily have to be a believer to see a contradiction, if it existed, and I’m not implying that any exist–apparent or otherwise.

    The unbeliever is not blinded to the law of contradiction nor is he hostile to it..necessarily, however, the unbeliever is hostile toward and blinded to the propositions about Christ and other propositions from scriptures.

    Eric

  30. James Says:

    Hi Mr. GreenBaggins – I appreciate the reply, but since I don’t really know you too well and do not wish to presume, please forgive me for asking you, once more,

    “If the Scriptures violated the laws of logic, specifically the law of contradiction, would they still be trustworthy?”

    a simple Yes or No will do.

    My Thanks.

  31. justbybelief Says:

    Maybe Lane should rename his site to windbaggins.

  32. ackbeet Says:

    This is Adrian Keister, Lane’s twin brother. I can answer James’s question to Lane in the Jan 8th comment: No. However, the question has a self-contradictory hypothesis. It’s rather like the question of whether God can make a rock so big He cannot move it. Simply asking the question in the first place presupposes a contradiction.

    Since we get logic from the Scriptures in the first place (definitely something my father, J.C. Keister, would agree with), with the Holy Spirit showing us the way, it would not be possible for the Scriptures to violate logic. At least, the Scriptures could never violate the logic that they contain (including the Law of Contradiction).

  33. justbybelief Says:

    “However, the question has a self-contradictory hypothesis. It’s rather like the question of whether God can make a rock so big He cannot move it. Simply asking the question in the first place presupposes a contradiction. ”

    Not really! The question was asked to force certain individuals to come to certain conclusions about their erroneous theology and absurd statements about logic.

  34. ackbeet Says:

    @justbybelief: So you think the Scriptures can violate logic?

  35. justbybelief Says:

    @ackbeet: Who said anything like that?

    Does irrationality run in the family?

  36. Sean Gerety Says:

    This is Adrian Keister, Lane’s twin brother. I can answer James’s question to Lane in the Jan 8th comment: No.

    Adrian, or is it Aaron since Lane evidently needs a mouthpiece, while I wait to see if James is satisfied with your reply on behalf of Lane, you probably have gathered that I am not. While I’m sure you don’t care what I think, does your brother believe with Scott Clark and CVT that the Scriptures present to the mind of man any number of insoluble paradoxes (see Scott’s “short list” for starters). To take a concrete example from Scott’s list, do the Scriptures teach that God has “expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things [i.e., the salvation of the reprobate] which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass.” Or, more simply, do the Scriptures teach that God both desires and does not desire the salvation of the reprobate? This is a position I believe held by your brother and one that presents to the mind of man a contradiction.

    So to whom are the Scriptures non-contradictory and where might we find this “consent of all the parts”? Is this something possible for man aided by the Holy Spirit as he wrestles with Scripture in an effort to harmonize the whole, or are such attempts ontologically impossible and violations of the “Creator/creature” distinction as Van Til and his followers maintain and tantamount to the sin of “rationalism”?

    See, it is not enough to say that there are no contradictions in Scripture and that they are therefore trustworthy if what you mean is that while “a paradox remains for us, though by faith we are confident that there is no paradox for God.” See James’ comment here:

    https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/baggins-protests/#comment-15362

  37. James Says:

    Sean –

    Adrian replied “No. However” – alas, it was not a simple “No.” So I’m a little suspicious. I’m even more suspicious when I consider that the explanation of the “However” is irrelevant to the point. Even if one recasts your question as a piece of per impossible reasoning as he does (being very generous to Adrian here), it does not alter the point that the propositions of Scripture are, if they are to be trustworthy, constrained by LawC – Let it be true that it’s not possible for Scriptures to violate LawC, the constraint is in full force and nothing takes away from that. Also, the reply to Adrian’s question to Justbyb is simply this: it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks, what matters is that if they did violate LawC they’d be untrustworthy. They are constrained. So having said all that, I wonder why the “however” – why not just let your “No” be “No”?

    But, and since you have way more experience with these than I do, if the “however” points to some program in which under the ruse of the claim “It’s not possible for Scriptures to violate LawC” they are promulgating error, confusion, and nonsense via “mystery” or whatever, then I would say that program must be rejected and openly resisted. Ultimately God is their Judge and he will deal with false teachers quite harshly.

    Thx

  38. justbybelief Says:

    …if the “however” points to some program in which under the ruse of the claim “It’s not possible for Scriptures to violate LawC” they are promulgating error, confusion, and nonsense via “mystery” or whatever,…

    This is exactly what they’re doing. Just as the Roman State-Church has done, they’re opening this door to introduce an elitist priest class to which the ill-informed will pay obeisance bringing darkness over the face of the church.

    Ultimately God is their Judge and he will deal with false teachers quite harshly.

    Amen!

  39. LJ Says:

    “… Norman Shepherd feels that the Apologetics of Gordon Clark are tri- um~hing in his demise at Westminster. And VanTil’s whole point of view has been eased out. And that’it’s becoming clearly in focus in his own situation in his mind. He’s called it the triumpb of Gordon Clark.”

    Has anyone read this? It comes from an “Interview with Jim Payton, Jack Sawyer, Peter Lillback” with Van Til sometime before CVT passed away. It’s type written and difficult to follow and it seems obvious CVT is old but it does fill in some blanks in my mind. Van Til’s high regard for Norman Shepherd is obvious throughout. I can’t recall where I got it but it’s fascinating reading.

    Sorry, if I’ve departed from the thread’s topic.

    LJ

  40. Sean Gerety Says:

    Do you have a link?

  41. LJ Says:

    Sean, no link but I can try and copy and paste. For the life of me I cannot remember where I got it. It is a audio recorded interview with CVT being held by three men, mentioned above, then typed out in text form. There’s hand written notes in the margin indication when CVT is speaking and when the others, like Jim Payton, are speaking.

    It’s all about them interviewing CVT about Ed Clowney, Westminster Seminary, and whether it had gone “broadly evangelical” or not. Clark is mentioned often as is Machen and many other early Westminster notables. It’s pretty interesting reading. I don’t have it with me but when I get home tonight I’ll try to figure out where I got it and forward it on to you.

    LJ

  42. LJ Says:

    Aha! Found it! You’ll love this:

    http://trinity-pres.net/essays/ns06-InterviewWithJimPaytonJackSawyerPeterLillback.pdf

    From this church records defending Shepherd: http://trinity-pres.net/study/normanshepherd.php

    Let me know what you think!

    LJ

  43. LJ Says:

    Sean, it just dawned on me that I may be unknowingly violating material that is copywrited. I just cut and pasted from that church’s website. Use your judgment please.

  44. Sean Gerety Says:

    Thanks. Looks interesting.

  45. justbybelief Says:

    @LJ: According to CVT Clark and Clowney are responsible for the demise from the Reformed tradition of WTS. How delusional!

  46. LJ Says:

    Yes, Gordon H. Clark, the “broadly evangelical man.” What a crock of scubala! No wonder CVT’s prodigy, who I’ve found usually fail to even read GHC, take at face value what some of these Wesminster men have written. The libel, the lies, and the sinful back room old boy network has won the day for now. But the future may yield a new story, eh? We shall see.

  47. LJ Says:

    And add to that Norman Shepherd is the paragon of traditional reformed orthodoxy in their view … with Van Til leading the cheers, LOL!

  48. justbybelief Says:

    And add to that Norman Shepherd is the paragon of traditional reformed orthodoxy in their view

    It’s amazing. The central debates of the reformation were scripture alone and justification by faith ALONE. How can anyone claim to be Reformed while denying both these central teachings of the Bible. And, to add insult to injury, those who deny these are lauded amongst one another in the modern (supposedly) Reformed seminary.

    Eric

  49. Hugh McCann Says:

    LJ – would that there was a thumbs-up for your post of 8:18pm.

    And I think you mean “progeny” @ 8:15, not “prodigy”?

  50. LJ Says:

    I loved this little tidbit from CVT:

    “That’s right. But I’m hoping and praying there will be a revival of
    the Reformed faith according to B.B.Warfield, Gerhardus Vos, C.W.Hodge, J. Gresham Machen, John Murray and Norman Shepherd.”

    Yes, you’re reading it right here “… and Norman Shepherd.”

    More to come …

    LJ

  51. Hugh McCann Says:

    I usually think of Norman Shepherd in that lineage. Don’t you? 😉

    Definitely a downgrade in that list (with the exception of Machen)!

  52. LJ Says:

    @Hugh: probably progeny, HA! Dad gum spail chick😂👍haaaa

  53. Hugh McCann Says:

    sadly, it is a prodigious progeny !

  54. Sean Gerety Says:

    I will say, Van Til was virtually incoherent, but I did think this was funny:

    Peter Lillback: Well, would you give us permission to name our study center or school the Van Til Seminary, in your honor?

    CVT: No, I would say the Norman Shepherd School.

  55. LJ Says:

    I guess any question about Van Til’s allegiance to Sheherd is now settled? Does this embarras Van Tilians?

  56. Sean Gerety Says:

    They’ll just say he was dotty and old at that point. Reading his responses to direct questions it would be hard to argue.

    But I don’t think anyone would disagree that he and Lillback see Clark as their enemy.

  57. justbybelief Says:

    Shame (embarrassment) would indicate knowledge, and acknowledgement, of personal error. If one admits neither of these, there will be no shame. In a word, the Holy Spirit would need to be present for there to be any godly shame.

    Among Van Tillians I imagine there are the useful idiots; then, there are those who know full well what they are doing. Their plan is to undermine Reformed (biblical) teaching and its proponents.

    To undermine the reformation one needs only attack the foundation: scripture and justification. When these are gone, anything goes. Isn’t it funny that these doctrines are just the ones under attack by Van Til and his disciples.

  58. LJ Says:

    @ Sean: They’ll just say he was dotty and old at that point.

    I think he was and they knew it since they were pimpin’ his ride for their new seminary. But even a senile old CVT wasn’t jumpin’ in that cruiser, LOL!

    I’d cut CVT some slack if it wasn’t patently obvious from the Clark – Van Til Controversy where his thoughts and moral compass pointed.

    LJ


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: