Van Til is often [completely] misunderstood regarding his teaching on brute facts.  For those unfamiliar with Van Til, a brute fact is one that is completely uninterpreted.  It is a piece of “data” that exists “out there” and “on its own” without being interpreted by any mind whatsoever.  Van Til gets the idea and the term from British absolute idealism and he clearly rejects the possibility of such a thing.  But many readers misunderstand the reason for rejecting brute facts.

The postmodernist wants to reject the existence of brute facts by saying that all facts are interpreted by subjects who exist in a socio-cultural milieu.  Therefore, we can never access “objective” truth because there are no brute facts. All our knowledge is colored by our socio-cultural situation.  Van Til’s point in rejecting brute facts is not that human subjects are bound by culture and are therefore unable to interpret facts without bias, but that God is the all-knower.  The self-sufficient Triune God knows all facts and pre-interprets them.  Therefore we can never come to any fact without approaching it as one that is already known and has been interpreted by the all-knowing Triune God.

On page 101 of his book The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity, Carl Raschke speaks of Van Til’s as a transitional theology on its way toward postmodernism.  This is a terrible case of misreading a theologian – using a gross misrepresentation for one’s own doctrinal wiles.  Our task as human knowers is to reinterpret the facts, thinking God’s thoughts after him on a created level.  We think analogically as our knowledge is firmly planted on the one who knows all things.  As such we are not hopelessly trapped within our socio-cultural context, but can escape that context because God has clearly revealed himself and that he is the reference point for all knowledge.  Perhaps readers are interpreting Van Til according to their own postmodern inclinations.

I’m certain this video will ruffle a few feathers.  Regardless of your view of justification’s position in the ordo salutis, this is a very clear and concise presentation by Lane G. Tipton.

Westminster Theological Seminary has posted a video of Lane Tipton speaking about Calvin and the doctrine of union with Christ. He places an important emphasis on the person of Christ. As being united to this person the benefits are mediated to the believer. In Him we have our justification, sanctification and adoption.  “You first possess Christ and then in Christ you are justified.”

James Dolezal discussed Calvin for the Craig Center at Westminster Theological Seminary.

The latest issue of Modern Reformation has unleashed the reformed conspiracy theorists.  As visitors to the Reformed Forum are well aware, the differences in the reformed world concerning the precise relationship of the benefits in the ordo salutis have been well-documented. Within the orthodox camp (NPP and FV proponents excluded) various explanations of the relationship between justification and sanctification are often boiled down to two primary groups.  Michael Horton is one of the most visible and widely published of the first group in the discussion.  Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. is often presented as the most prominent member of the other – the so-called “union with Christ school.”

There is no shortage of labeling from either side.  The “union with Christ school” gets likened to Federal Vision and New Perspective(s) on Paul theology, while those who agree with Horton are often termed “Lutheran.”  Though name-calling is never helpful, theological comparisons can prove useful in certain circumstances.  The latest issue of Modern Reformation continues this trend.  Or does it?

I realize things can get heated in the throws of theological discussion, so I offer this post as a light-hearted observation.  As one might expect, Volume 18, Issue 7 includes a series on John Calvin.  In the lead article, Is Calvin Still Relevant After 500 Years? It all Depends, Michael Horton describes the duplex gratia dei akin to the way he does in his Covenant and Salvation.  The next article, Christ at the Center: The Legacy of the Reformed Tradition (no relation to the podcast of course!) deals in part with the issue of union with Christ – presenting a Calvin more amenable to the “union with Christ school.”

What brings out the crazy uncle is that this particular article is written by Dennis E. Tamburello, a Roman Catholic priest.  As a friend of mine has said, it does seem a little odd that a Roman Catholic priest is writing for Modern Reformation.  Many will shrug this off – and probably for good reason.  Tamburello has written a book on Calvin and union with Christ and is a capable contributor.  But then again, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not really after you!

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard someone in the church warn against proof texting. Proof-texting, of course, is that method of defending theological truth by means of appeal to one particular verse of the Bible. I readily admit that often proof-texting is abused and used to draw faulty conclusions. This is most evident in the false teaching of the cults and heretical sects of Christianity–specifically with regard to their doctrine of God, Christ, man and salvation. Within orthodox Christianity, it is seen in the realm of eschatology and ecclesiology.

But is all proof-texting wrong? I wonder if there hasn’t been an over reaction to the abhorrent theology of the cults and sects, and to the aberrations of sound theology in the dispensationalist and postmillennial camps of Christendom. Everyone practices proof-texting of some kind, and it is entirely right to do so. The Apostle Paul did it relentlessly. One only has to consider his method of defending justification by faith alone in Galatians 3, or his explanation of individual, eternal election in Romans 9, or his eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, it could be argued that Paul defends every doctrine of Scripture by proof-texting from the Old Testament. The use of the OT in the NT is a systematic application of contextual proof-texting. So what is the principle that needs to be established before we can practice a biblical proof-texting? This answers to this question could fill, and have filled, volumes. It seems, however, that a very basic answer can be given based on discussions of exegesis being governed by systematic and biblical theology.
(more…)

Dr. Duncan opened his talk by saying “If you are a pastor you are a theologian, the only question is, ‘Are you going to be a good one or a bad one?” And, “If you are a pastor be a Systematic Theologian and not merely a Thematic Theologian.” We live in an age that is anti-theological and anti-systematic. Our society does this while all the while holding to a systematic world view. This brings unto into a debate about whether we are going to be doctrinal or not. No matter how much someone says we shouldn’t be so confident in our doctrine, they are being confident in THEIR doctrine.

(more…)

By faith [the Christian] is a member of the covenant [of grace], and that faith has a wide outlook, a comprehensive character, which not only points to justification but also to all the benefits which are in Christ. Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith one-sidedly–only it its connection with justification–for the Reformed Christian it is saving faith in all the magnitude of the word. According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place . . . The covenantal (or Reformed) outlook is the reverse. One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition by faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given. Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps justification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, as his rich and full Messiah.

—
Vos, Geerhardus. "Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" in Redemptive-History and Biblical Interpretation edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.  p 256.

In Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis Greg Bahnsen brings up an interesting point regarding the role of special revelation.

Supernatural verbal revelation is, according to Van Til, inherent in the human situation and the intended concomitant to supernatural revelation in nature and in man’s inner constitution.  In that case, man was never – and is not now – expected simply to observe the natural world or consider his own rational, moral personality and figure out for himself how they are to be interpreted and how their truths are to be verbally expressed.  Man’s Creator has provided the linguistic framework for “exegeting” the truth of God in natural revelation and in man himself.¹

(more…)

We will be asking Dr. Richard Gaffin this very question on a future episode of Christ the Center. Many understand this question to mean “Am I saved by good works?” All orthodox Christians answer an emphatic “No” to that question. Yet some still understand sanctification to be a fruit of the gospel rather than the gospel itself. Those holding this view often describe justification as the gospel. Still others view sanctification as one facet of a larger gospel message including all the benefits believers have in Jesus Christ (justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification). The answer to question 75 of the Westminster Larger Catechism describes sanctification.

Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.

How do you understand sanctification and its relationship to the gospel message? What are your thoughts?  Comment here or join the discussion at the RF Forums.

Ben Shaw, Professor of Old Testament at GPTS, has started a series of posts, entitled “Notes on the Bible,” over at GPTS Rabbi. This is obviously inspired by Jonathan Edwards’ Notes on Scripture. Dr. Shaw has already worked his way through most of Genesis and part of Matthew. These are exceptionally helpful exegetical, biblical and systematic expositions of various texts. You can find the most recent links below:

Genesis 1-6; and Matthew 1-2
Genesis 6-12; and Matthew 3-4
Genesis 13-18; and Matthew 5
Genesis 19-23; and Matthew 5:43-6:34
Genesis 24-26; and Matthew 7:1-8:15
Genesis 27-35; and Matthew 8:16-10:39
Genesis 36-40; and Matthew 10:40-12:14
Genesis 41-44; and Matthew 12:15-13:9
Genesis 45-48; and Matthew 13:10-52

I cannot believe that there is an electronic copy of this masterpiece available online. C.C. Jones’ History of the Church of God is an amazing work, written by one of the greatest, yet lesser known, Southern Presbyterians of the 19th Century. The genius of this work is found in the way that Jones attempts to blend Systematic and Biblical Theology as he treats the Old Testament Revelation. I hope that all of you will take advantage of having access to this work. It is almost impossible to find a hard copy.

Scripture is often used in Scripture in a systematic manner, making logical deductions in order to observe the full implications of what the bible teaches elsewhere.

Look again at Mark 12:24-27. Jesus rebukes the Saducees for not knowing the Scriptures, yet what he criticises is a part of their Systematic Theology: they wrongly deny the resurrection. He then reads Exodus 3:6 in the light of the systematic belief that God is the God of the living, to reach the conclusion that the Pentateuch affirms the resurrection.

The statement ‘He is not the God of the dead but the God of the living’, is particularly pertinent to our discussion. Not a single verse in the Old Testament makes this assertion explicitly, yet when we read of God’s action in the Old Testament as a whole, that he is the God of the living is clear. Jesus is not giving new revelation when he says this. He is deducing it from a systematic reading of the Old Testament. Neither is Jesus alone a legitimate Systematician, for if he were, he would not rebuke the Saducees for wrong Systematics. They too were expected to make such logical connections from Scripture. If Jesus expected it of the Saducees, then how much more will he expect it of his redeemed people?

HT: Les Prouty

Here is the link to Carl Trueman’s lecture titled “A Balancing Act.” Graeme Goldsworthy’s response, “Ontology and Biblical Theology,” can be found here. This is an important and interesting debate over the relationship between and prority of systematic and biblical theology.