"I don't think we need to read either some of the major Puritan theologians or confessions as if they were classical theistic documents in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas particularly. There are other ways to be classical than the Thomistic view." Amen!! 🔥🔥🔥
Here is a wonderful summary of that point from Vos. Vos follows Calvin (and Van Til does as well) on these points. “22. Show that the first and foremost reason why the Second Person is called Son lies in His eternal and supernatural relationship with the Father and is independent from His position as Mediator. This appears: a) From those places where the Word is called Son before His incarnation (Gal 4:4; John 1:14, 18). b) From the places in which the name Son of God is used such that it includes the deity of the Lord (John 5:18-25; Heb 7). c) From the places in which He is called the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). d) From the fact that Christ nowhere prays to God as “Our Father” or speaks of Him as “Our Father.” It is always “Father.” In these places the Lord does not place Himself on the same line with His disciples. For Him, God is a Father in an entirely other, infinitely higher sense than for them. e) From the fact that in Mark 13:32 the Lord presents Himself as “the Son” in distinction from angels and men. f) From the fact that in Matthew 11:27 a wholly unique knowledge of God, which no one else can possess, is derived from His Sonship. g) From the fact that by accepting the title Son of God, Christ could be charged with blasphemy. 23. Is it correct to speak of the Father as the “Fountain of Deity,” as many have done? This expression is not biblical. It can also lead to misunderstandings. Scripture uses the name Father relative to showing the personal existence of the Son. Of this the Father is the source and not of His deity. The deity of the three persons is one and undivided, belonging to each of the three persons. On the other hand, the Son and the Holy Spirit have their personal existence from the Father, the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., trans. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012-2016), 52-53.
At about 59:00 the statement is made: “Natural revelation is what God does and natural theology is what we do.” What a mischaracterization! Sure, Natural revelation is what God does… but proper natural theology is what GOD DOES through us and in us.
Interesting, how does one distinguish betweeen “proper” natural theology and “improper” natural theology? I think the distinction between natural revelation (that which God reveals) and natural theology (that which man can know from such revelation) is a necessary one. Of course all proper theology, meaning true theology, is from God and is first know perfectly by Him, but as He reveals Himself to fallen humans, their understanding of God is imperfect, and at most times, highly suspect. Especially if they are still in active rebellion against their creator.
@@tristanling4146 - Great question. First, let’s agree that no unconverted person does proper natural theology. In fact, they are bent on suppressing proper natural theology in favor the lie that God is like them. So, their errors are of two kinds (a) intellectual (ie where they make mistakes in logic and reason that are just erroneous mis-steps, similar to calculating a sum wrong in a math problem) and (b) moral (ie they are seeking a way to avoid the obvious conclusion that they are subject to and dependent to a creator… because they don’t want it to be true). However, while the converted person can still make the first kind of error (ie intellectual) they are not intentionally making the second. So, conversion is key. When God shows us who He is and converts the heart so that we see Him as beautiful… we can rightly see the world around us for what it is… the incredible work of God. Thus, proper natural theology requires (a) conversion of the heart and then (b) clear thinking about the world.
@@tristanling4146 - but then is our access to scripture not plagued by the same issue? Our ability to properly order in relation to the highest good is certainly blackened but we are still in the image of God as a rational creature with an intellect and will. The ability to interact with a knowable reality is kind of a necessary starting point to know the scriptures in the first place.
@@fndrr42 no scripture is the starting place for man to know anything or to interact with a knowable reality. Yes man is created in the image of God, yes we have an intellect and will which is marred by sin, but we are also created to be in covenant with God. Because as fallen man, we are by nature covenant breakers, hating God, and denying His Word and His Being, we cannot know anything aright. This does not mean man cannot reason or know any truths, but it does mean that whatever truth or sound reason man does have, he know and uses in rebellion against God, not in service to Him or to come to a greater knowledge of Him. Man’s denial and hatred of God means that all knowledge and reason he has, he has in spite his status before God. Man cannot give an epistemological account for why he knows what he knows because he denies the very existence of that foundation, names God and His Word. That’s why I say that Scripture is the only starting place for man knowing reality at all, not the other way around-as Thomas or Rome would have us think
Read Tipton's book The Trinitarian Theology of Van Til. Excellent book. Really glad to see him offering his wisdom to the students.
"I don't think we need to read either some of the major Puritan theologians or confessions as if they were classical theistic documents in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas particularly. There are other ways to be classical than the Thomistic view."
Amen!! 🔥🔥🔥
Thank you for posting this video.
Really enjoyed listening in, thanks for sharing!
EXCELLENT Q&A
I may need to listen to this over and over before I've understood 25% :D
Excellent discussion.
24:00 what?
Here is a wonderful summary of that point from Vos. Vos follows Calvin (and Van Til does as well) on these points.
“22. Show that the first and foremost reason why the Second Person is called Son lies in His eternal and supernatural relationship with the Father and is independent from His position as Mediator.
This appears:
a) From those places where the Word is called Son before His incarnation (Gal 4:4; John 1:14, 18).
b) From the places in which the name Son of God is used such that it includes the deity of the Lord (John 5:18-25; Heb 7).
c) From the places in which He is called the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
d) From the fact that Christ nowhere prays to God as “Our Father” or speaks of Him as “Our Father.” It is always “Father.” In these places the Lord does not place Himself on the same line with His disciples. For Him, God is a Father in an entirely other, infinitely higher sense than for them.
e) From the fact that in Mark 13:32 the Lord presents Himself as “the Son” in distinction from angels and men.
f) From the fact that in Matthew 11:27 a wholly unique knowledge of God, which no one else can possess, is derived from His Sonship.
g) From the fact that by accepting the title Son of God, Christ could be charged with blasphemy.
23. Is it correct to speak of the Father as the “Fountain of Deity,” as many have done?
This expression is not biblical. It can also lead to misunderstandings. Scripture uses the name Father relative to showing the personal existence of the Son. Of this the Father is the source and not of His deity. The deity of the three persons is one and undivided, belonging to each of the three persons. On the other hand, the Son and the Holy Spirit have their personal existence from the Father, the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., trans. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012-2016), 52-53.
I feel ya brother. I didn't understand hardly any of that.
At about 59:00 the statement is made:
“Natural revelation is what God does and natural theology is what we do.”
What a mischaracterization! Sure, Natural revelation is what God does… but proper natural theology is what GOD DOES through us and in us.
Correct - like we can somehow access “natural revelation” outside of our own humanity. Doesn’t work like that.
Interesting, how does one distinguish betweeen “proper” natural theology and “improper” natural theology?
I think the distinction between natural revelation (that which God reveals) and natural theology (that which man can know from such revelation) is a necessary one.
Of course all proper theology, meaning true theology, is from God and is first know perfectly by Him, but as He reveals Himself to fallen humans, their understanding of God is imperfect, and at most times, highly suspect. Especially if they are still in active rebellion against their creator.
@@tristanling4146 - Great question. First, let’s agree that no unconverted person does proper natural theology. In fact, they are bent on suppressing proper natural theology in favor the lie that God is like them. So, their errors are of two kinds (a) intellectual (ie where they make mistakes in logic and reason that are just erroneous mis-steps, similar to calculating a sum wrong in a math problem) and (b) moral (ie they are seeking a way to avoid the obvious conclusion that they are subject to and dependent to a creator… because they don’t want it to be true). However, while the converted person can still make the first kind of error (ie intellectual) they are not intentionally making the second.
So, conversion is key. When God shows us who He is and converts the heart so that we see Him as beautiful… we can rightly see the world around us for what it is… the incredible work of God. Thus, proper natural theology requires (a) conversion of the heart and then (b) clear thinking about the world.
@@tristanling4146 - but then is our access to scripture not plagued by the same issue? Our ability to properly order in relation to the highest good is certainly blackened but we are still in the image of God as a rational creature with an intellect and will. The ability to interact with a knowable reality is kind of a necessary starting point to know the scriptures in the first place.
@@fndrr42 no scripture is the starting place for man to know anything or to interact with a knowable reality.
Yes man is created in the image of God, yes we have an intellect and will which is marred by sin, but we are also created to be in covenant with God. Because as fallen man, we are by nature covenant breakers, hating God, and denying His Word and His Being, we cannot know anything aright.
This does not mean man cannot reason or know any truths, but it does mean that whatever truth or sound reason man does have, he know and uses in rebellion against God, not in service to Him or to come to a greater knowledge of Him.
Man’s denial and hatred of God means that all knowledge and reason he has, he has in spite his status before God. Man cannot give an epistemological account for why he knows what he knows because he denies the very existence of that foundation, names God and His Word.
That’s why I say that Scripture is the only starting place for man knowing reality at all, not the other way around-as Thomas or Rome would have us think