On The Shoulders of Giants (II)
Bahnsen’s Schematic
Here I want to provide in brief outline form Greg Bahnsen’s schematic of Van Til’s critical appropriation of Warfield and Kuyper. In the following series of blog posts I will then seek to flesh out the points.1
Bahnsen explains Van Til’s approach in the following manner:
According to Van Til, we find these three things in both Warfield and Kuyper: (1) a brilliant conviction of central importance which is relevant to our theory of knowledge and apologetics, (2) another notion, which is inconsistent with the first conviction, and then (3) a view of apologetics that is mistakenly inferred from that first conviction.2
Warfield:
(W1) There is an objective, intelligible, and clear revelation of God to all men in nature and history.
(W2) The evidence of Christianity only warrants the probability of its truth.
(W3) Natural man is able to give a correct interpretation of God’s natural revelation through the use of “right reason.â€
Kuyper:
(K1) There is an antithesis between belief and unbelief that leads to the formation of two sciences.
(K2) The antithesis is mitigated by areas unaffected by the fall (weighing, measuring, logic) and a limited area of neutral common ground.
(K3) Given the antithesis, apologetics is virtually useless and so deserves only a minor place in the theological encyclopedia.
I don’t mean to take your thread on a tangent, but can you point me to a more comprehensive presentation of K2. I’d like to know how Kuyper manages to allow for “set-asides” regarding the Fall as if most human faculties were broken but some were left untouched instead of all being more or less bent.
Comment on January 23, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
I will be answering your question in detail in forthcoming segments of the
blog series. However, if you have access to Kuyper’s “Principles of Sacred
Theology,” you can see how he allows for “set-asides” at pp. 157-59.
Perhaps, as I will suggest, this relates to his discussion of the
subject/object relationship and the differences between the physical and
spiritual sciences in which the very physical nature of natural science puts
constraints on human theorizing. You can find his comments on this at pp.
89-105. Hope that helps.
Jeff
Comment on February 19, 2006 @ 2:01 pm