Our pro-abort president

   Over on his "The Quick and the Dead" blog ("So Far, So Bad"), George Grant has compiled a list of President Obama's pro-abortion actions since before the inauguration.  It's a nasty start for the pre-born, and a big boost to the bloodsuckers.  Read 'em and weep.

Giving a Bible to an atheist

   This morning during our worldview discussion group, I mentioned a YouTube video I'd seen several weeks back by the Penn of Penn & Teller about a man who gave him a Bible after a show.  It is a pretty amazing little video.  Penn is an avowed atheist, but seemed genuinely touched by the man's gift (I assume the man was a Gideon).  Pray that God's word will not return to him void.

On the insufficiency of "general revelation" and the necessity of "special revelation"

Last night at the discussion group we were talking about “general revelation,” and I mentioned that though our Confession of Faith (I.1) emphasizes the redemptive necessity of “special revelation,” Dr. Van Til made the point that — even before the fall of mankind into sin — it was necessary that God reveal himself “specially,” directly, verbally to our first parents.  Thus we need special revelation (as it is found now in Holy Scripture) not only to set out the hope of redemption and God’s works of grace to bring it about.  Human beings would not have been able to have “any fruition of [God] as their blessedness and reward” (WCF VII.1) — i.e., live life fully as God intended to their blessedness and his glory — had not the Creator spoken to them covenantally (i.e., with words of promise and command),even before the entrance of sin into the world.  And those words implied a clearer and deeper revelation of God himself to his human creatures.

Here is one passage (from his An Introduction to Systematic Theology) in which Van Til discusses this matter:

Originally in Paradise God gave, as we say, in addition to the revelation of himself that appeared in nature and in man, a positive thought communication of himself.  God walked and talked with man.  Here was true theophany.  We may think of this theophany as given to man for the purpose of communicating to him a more intimate knowledge of God.  It is true that it was by way of this positive revelation that God also communicated to man his will and purpose for man with respect to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil [and, we might add, the “cultural mandate,” Gen. 1:28, that defined the scope of God’s calling upon his human creatures—RW].  Yet in this very fact God revealed himself to man and made himself known in such a way as man could not have known him from the study of the created universe alone.  We cannot artificially separate the knowledge of God that man received or could receive by his reflection on man and the created universe in general, and the knowledge of God that man received from God by direct communication.  The revelation from the created universe did place man face to face with God and not merely with the idea of the existence of God.  Yet it was through the revelation by direct communication that God's purpose and plans with respect to the universe appeared more fully still.  And by revealing his purposes and plans more fully, God also revealed himself more fully.  And it is only in relation to this fuller revelation of God that the facts of nature and man could appear in their proper light.

This direct revelation to man stopped after the entrance of sin insofar as it was an original loving communication.  God did often speak directly to man after the entrance of sin, but it was always either in judgment on sin or in mercy for the purpose of the removal of sin.  Thus God spoke to Cain and Abel in order to reveal to them the way of sacrifice, the way of redemption.  Then, again, he spoke to Cain afterward by way of judgment on his rejection of the sacrifice.  In both cases, we may say that there is a new revelation of the plans and purposes of God.  The revelation as it was originally given, that is, a loving self-communication of God to his creature as creature, could not be continued.  If God was to continue his communication with his creature, it was to be either by condemnation or by atonement.

So then, we must single out this original communication of God to man and say that after the entrance of sin, only the tradition of it remained.  Man was, of course, responsible for this tradition.  To this tradition must be added the fact that God has from time to time spoken to individuals that were in close connection with the line of the redemptive work of God, of his judgment on them and on all those who hate the Israel of God.  In the third place, we must add the fact that some men have actually heard the revelation of mercy as given in the Old Testament times to Israel as a people, and in New Testament times to the church.  Yet, for all that, it remains a fact that the actual communication of God with man as man has ceased since the entrance of sin into the world.  (pp. 187-188, emphasis added)

What this means (among other things) is that any human being, in order to understand himself and his place in the world properly, and to grasp the meaning of human existence as a whole — must have recourse to the “direct communicaton” (i.e., “special revelation”) of God contained in Scripture.  The Bible’s relevance is not limited to those who are looking for a way to be saved (as important as that redemptive concern is).

Conversely, when human beings reject the Bible (i.e., “suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” Rom. 1:18) — as we all do by nature — we are disconnecting ourselves from the only source of truth that can enable us to pursue any truly “human” activity (science, art, social organization, jurisprudence, etc.) fully and properly.

This is true in principle (as Van Til also emphasized).  In actual practice, non-believers regularly borrow (steal!) from the Christian worldview (and the Bible that informs it) in order to function at all — all the time denying the existence of the Triune Creator and the authority of his word in Scripture.

Take your pick

"If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." — Mark Twain

"Common ground" is not "neutral ground"

Greg Bahnsen made the following observations regarding Van Til's teaching about "common ground," originally published in an issue of the SCCCS Penpoint newsletter (I've edited it slightly here for brevity and clarity):

   Cornelius Van Til was granted a God-honoring, biblical clarity about the issue of "common ground" between those who adhere to the Scriptures and those who repudiate or compromise the teaching of God's word — whether outright unbelievers or followers of false religions, theological modernism, Romanism, or the cults.

   Van Til called for faithfulness to the Lordship of Christ in all of our thinking.  Thus our ultimate presuppositions must regulate every phase of our reasoning, including our argumentation in defense of the faith.  There is no neutrality.  Only the presupposed truth of God's self-revelation — which all men know even if suppressed in unrighteousness — makes intelligible their claims to knowledge about anything whatsoever and makes justification of those claims possible.  Thus the all-encompassing apologetical challenge issued by Van Til was that without the Christian God men could not, in principle, prove or know anything at all.

  Van Til wrote:

The implication of this for Christian apologetics is plain.  There can be no appeasement between those who presuppose in all their thought the sovereign God and those who presuppose in all their thought the would-be sovereign man.  There can be no other point of contact between them than that of head-on collision. (The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel)

   Van Til's critics sometimes misconstrued this challenge as saying that there is no common ground between the thinking of believers and unbelievers.  Van Til affirmed that there is indeed common ground, but it is not religiously neutral common ground.  He wrote:

It is this fact, that the natural man, using his principles and working on his assumptions, must be hostile in principle at every point to the Christian philosophy of life, that was stressed in the writer's little book, Common Grace.  That all men have all things in common metaphysically and psychologically, was definitely asserted, and further, that the natural man has epistemologically nothing in common with the Christian.  And this latter assertion was qualified by saying that this is so only in principle.…  So far then as men self-consciously work from this principle [of sin, autonomy], they have no notion in common with the believer.  Their epistemology is informed by their ethical hostility to God. (The Defense of the Faith)

   When we deal with men on the level of their theory of knowledge (epistemology), Van Til held that we must remember the doctrine of "total depravity" — and thus challenge in every area of life and at every point all who repudiate or compromise the Scriptures.  In philosophical principle they could not make anything intelligible in any aspect of human experience.

"When through the woods and forest glades I wander…"

The new masthead photo above is a shot I took a few years back in the high country of Yosemite, while Sherry and I were driving home from a visit to Sonora.  You really need to get out sometimes!