A Brief G. Vos Bio and BT Lesson

Trueman on Bavinck as Model

I am blessed to own Herman Bavinck's 4-volume "Reformed Dogmatics" and the John Bolt-edited, "The Last Things." And though Cornelius Van Til chides Bavinck for instances of excursions into autonomous reasoning, still the latter's influence on the former is undeniable.

In this short article, Dr. Carl Trueman extols the virtues of Bavinckism.

Van Til on Driscoll

Mark Driscoll's rejection of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God (declared in ecumenical creeds and Reformed confessions) is discussed here (Part 1), here (Part 2), here (Part 3), and here (Part 4).

It appears Cornelius Van Til was on the mark once again when he said:

It is sometimes contended that ministers need not be trained in systematic theology if only they know their Bibles. But "Bible-trained" instead of systematically trained preachers frequently preach error. They may mean ever so well and be ever so true to the gospel on certain points; nevertheless, they often preach error. There are many "orthodox" preachers today whose study of Scripture has been so limited to what it says about soteriology that they could not protect the fold of God against heresies on the person of Christ. Oftentimes they themselves even entertain definitely heretical notions on the person of Christ, though perfectly unaware of the fact. (An Introduction to Systematic Theology [New Jersey: P & R, 2007], ed. William Edgar, 22)

My Credo, by Cornelius Van Til

If you want to know what Cornelius Van Til was all about and where he was coming from, as narrated by the man himself, and be thoroughly refreshed and inspired in the process, then read on.


How can I express my appreciation adequately for the honor you have conferred on me by your contributions to this Festschrift? I shall try to do so first by setting forth in this, my "Credo," a general statement of my main beliefs as I hold them today. Then I shall deal separately with the problems and objections some of you have raised in respect to my views in separate response to the essays themselves. I hope that by doing this we may be of help to one another as together we present the name of Jesus as the only name given under heaven by which men must be saved.

The Coolest of the Reformed Cats

Notice the prominent foreheads? A chief requirement of Reformed coolness.

Turretin was probably wearing a wig or decided on the "heavy metal" look—still within the bounds of cool. LOL.

Paul Helm on Philosophical Theology

I'm currently going through Francis Turretin's Institiutes of Elenctic Theology and am now on the part wherein Turretin explains the valid use of reason in the engagement of theology (in Volume 1). He makes the case that reason's relationship to theology (or philosophy to theology) is not one wherein the former is principial to the latter, but precisely the other way around.

Philosophical thought bows its head to theology in matters wherein finite reason reaches its limits in terms of doctrines of Scripture that fall into the category of incomprehensible (mysteries).

It is noteworthy that Turretin, while in no way speaking of it as salvific on its own, claims natural theology as being precursory to supernatural theology, in that by virtue of being endowed with the Imago Dei and the testimony of the created order, man knows of God, and this by virtue of reason.

In this interview, Paul Helm agrees with Turretin:

Next to the Bible, What Is the Second Most Important Book?

According to Carl Trueman, it is J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism, a book that tackled an issue that will stay an issue up until the eschaton finally breaks in.

Dispelling Some Misconceptions on Van Til's Apologetics

The following 2-part series by Richard L. Pratt, Jr. of Third Millenium Ministries, which aims to dispel the various misconceptions about Cornelius Van Til's apologetics, is a very profitable read.

If you've encountered folks who've proposed that Van Til's method is in opposition to magisterial Reformed thought, then the information contained below will help you in giving an apt reply.


COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF VAN TIL'S APOLOGETICS - Part 1 of 2 (HTML/PDF)

COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF VAN TIL'S APOLOGETICS - Part 2 of 2 (HTML/PDF)

    

John Calvin's Influence on Reformed Apologetics

In no way exhaustive, the following 3 points derived from John Calvin's thought enumerate the ways in which he has contributed significantly to Reformed apologetics:

I. THE CREATOR-CREATURE DISTINCTION—IN KNOWING GOD YOU KNOW YOURSELF, IN KNOWING YOURSELF YOU KNOW GOD.

II. THE SENSUS DIVINITATIS.

III. THE SELF-ATTESTING AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE.


More below:

Bavinck on Truth and Catholicity

"Scripture is not designed so that we should parrot it but that as free children of God we should think his thoughts after him. But then all so-called presuppositionlessness and objectivity are impossible. So much study and reflection on the subject is bound up with it that no person can possibly do it alone. That takes centuries. To that end the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit's guidance into all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e., from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of the Christian faith. That person becomes a branch that is torn from the tree and shrivels, an organ that is separated from the body and therefore doomed to die.... For just as the Son of God become truly human, so also God's thoughts, incorporated in Scripture, become flesh and blood in the human consciousness. Dogmatics is and ought to be divine thought totally entered into and absorbed in our human consciousness, freely and independently expressed in our language, in its essence the fruit of centuries, in its form contemporary." [1]

"It is not apart from the existing churches but through them that Christ prepares for himself a holy, catholic church. Nor is it apart from the different ecclesiastical dogmas but through them that the unity of the knowledge of God is prepared and realized. In the same way the dogmatician will best be able to work fruitfully for the purification and development of the religious life and the confession of his church.... This significance of the church for theology and dogmatics is grounded in the link that Christ himself forged between the two." [2]

Footnotes:
[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, (John Bolt [ed.] & John Vriend [trans.]), (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 83.
[2] Ibid., 84.

The Self-Communication of God's Love

When mention is made of the love of God, it often is the case that this love is made to be grounded on the worthiness or comeliness of the object. We have heard it spoken that, "Even if you were the only person on Earth, Christ would have still come down and died for you." Of course, such musings about alternate universes are neither predicated upon good reasoning nor are they productive, as if counterfactuals had the being of actual facts themselves. What the phrase simply indicates is the sentimental, self-centered, humanistic notion of love that has captured the wider audience. It served Norman Vincent Peale well in his crusade for self-esteem but it does no good for the Christian fully devoted to the 5 solas of the Reformation.

Simply put, when we affirm that God is love, and how this bears upon its object, what we are really saying, if we are to be faithful to Scriptural import, is that God loves Himself as He sees Himself in the object. For humans to claim the same is the height of narcissism—though it is but an all too common instance of total depravity that we love those like us and hate those that differ—but for God it is the necessary corollary of His perfections. For God to be God, His love must always entail the proclamation of His glory. Indeed, for a person to truly say that he loves another, he must desire God's glory to be manifested in that person.

God's love then is "...that perfection of God by which He is eternally moved to self-communication. Since God is absolutely good in Himself, His love cannot find complete satisfaction in any object that falls short of absolute perfection. He loves His rational creatures for His own sake, or, to express it otherwise, He loves in them Himself, His virtues, His work, and His gifts. He does not even withdraw His love completely from the sinner in his present sinful state, though the latter's sin is an abomination to Him, since He recognizes even in the sinner His image-bearer. John 3:16; Matt. 5:44,45. At the same time He loves believers with a special love, since He contemplates them as His spiritual children in Christ. It is to them that He communicates Himself in the fullest and richest sense, with all the fulness of His grace and mercy. John 16:27; Rom. 5:8; 1 John 3:1." — Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, ch. 7, p. 71. 

A Primer on Geerhardus Vos, Father of Reformed Biblical Theology

Nineteen ninety-nine marks the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Geerhardus Vos, widely acknowledged as the father of Reformed Biblical theology. A descendent of French Huguenots, Vos was born in the Netherlands on March 14, 1862. He immigrated to the United States in 1881, when his father accepted a call to a congregation of the Christian Reformed Church, and he enrolled in what is now Calvin College, in Grand Rapids. From there he continued his studies at Princeton Theological Seminary (1883-1885), and he eventually earned his Ph.D. from the University of Strassburg in 1888.

After teaching at Calvin for a few years, Vos went on to serve at Princeton Theological Seminary nearly forty years, where he taught many of the founding ministers of the OPC, such as Machen, Murray, Stonehouse, and Van Til. Yet Vos is not normally included in the chain of Old Princeton giants that preceded Machen and the OPC (a list generally restricted to Alexander, Hodge, and Warfield). Vos was "largely a forgotten man," according to one biographer. "Enrollment in his courses at [Princeton] often was sparse compared to those of other professors of a more 'popular' type, because of the weightiness of his lectures."

Another explanation for Vos's relative obscurity was his low ecclesiastical profile. Rarely did he step outside the classroom and into the courts of the church (though he fought Presbyterian attempts to revise the Westminster Confession). Nearing retirement when Machen founded Westminster in 1929, Vos, an opponent of Princeton's reorganization, did not leave Princeton for Westminster, nor did he ever join the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Instead, he retired to southern California in 1932, and he then moved to Grand Rapids in 1937, where he lived until his death in 1949. Moreover, Vos never wrote for the Westminster Theological Journal or the Presbyterian Guardian. While Machen and other founders of the OPC may never have fully understood Vos's reasons for remaining in the PCUSA, there seemed a greater willingness to forgive him than others who stayed in. (The Guardian provided partial absolution in its obituary for Vos, noting that "when he retired in 1932, he left a valuable part of his library to Westminster Seminary.") Undoubtedly Catharine Vos, the author of the popular Child's Story Bible, has been far more widely read by Orthodox Presbyterians than her husband.

Much like Cornelius Van Til, Vos was an acquired taste. Biblical theology and presuppositional apologetics were new subjects in the curriculum of Presbyterian seminaries. Like Van Til, English was not Vos's native language, and his books quickly went out of print before their rediscovery after his death. His most well known work, Biblical Theology, was edited by his son and published by Eerdmans in 1948, just before his death.

Just as Vos was never a member of the OPC, so many of his best contemporary interpreters lie outside the denomination. James T. Dennison edits Kerux, a journal dedicated to redemptive-historical preaching in the Vosian tradition. At Gordon-Conwell Seminary, G. K. Beale is applying Vos's insights in New Testament exegesis (see for example his latest commentary on Revelation).

Still, it can be fairly said that no non-OPCer this century has influenced the denomination as much as Geerhardus Vos. Orthodox Presbyterians often describe themselves as a hybrid between Old Princeton and Dutch Calvinism. More than anyone else, Vos's long career at Princeton forged links between American Presbyterianism and Dutch Calvinism that were to shape the character of the OPC. Latter day Vosians in the church include Meredith G. Kline and Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

For Vos, "biblical theology" was short-hand for the study of the history of special revelation. So the starting point of his theology was acknowledgment of the progressive character of the revelation that accompanies God's redemptive activity. Vos likened this progress to the growth of a tree: "It is sometimes contended that the assumption of progress in revelation excludes its perfection at all stages. This would actually be so if the progress were non-organic. The organic progress is from seed-form to the attainment of full growth; yet we do not say that in the qualitative sense the seed is less perfect than the tree."

In historian Mark Noll's words, Vos was "attempting to roll back the assumption, prevailing since the late seventeenth century, that historical consciousness was the natural ally of naturalistic views of the Bible." For Vos, this historical progression culminated in the coming of Jesus Christ, whose work is revealed in the New Testament in terms of present inauguration and future consummation. G. K. Beale argues that while this interpretive approach is now standard (cf. Cullmann, Ridderbos, and Ladd), "Vos appears to be the first European or American scholar to espouse an ‘already and not yet eschatology'" to the theology of Paul. Yet the historical sensibilities in Vos's work has yet to gain full acceptance within the OPC, where suspicions persist that his approach may still concede too much to naturalism. Thus some contemporary exegesis of Scripture (for example, on creation), continues to miss its eschatological dimension.

Though originally a systematician, Vos's first love was biblical theology. Some of his followers suggest that Vosian biblical theology calls into question the very nature of dogmatics. Does Vos require a fundamental recasting of the categories of systematics? Can we even speak of a "system of doctrine" after Vos?

Those who would pit biblical theology against systematics have difficulty explaining Vos's long tenure at Princeton and especially his close friendship with Warfield. And Vos himself would hardly identify his insights as Copernican. He was deeply grounded in the Reformed dogmatic tradition. Far from jettisoning systematic theology, Vos was a staunch defender of Reformed confessional orthodoxy, and he used biblical theology to give fresh and creative defense of dogmatics, such as the doctrines of the covenant, soteriology, and the kingdom of God. The two disciplines were complementary, each transforming the biblical data in different ways. "Biblical theology draws a line of development," Vos wrote. "Systematic theology draws a circle." Following in the footsteps of Vos, Meredith G. Kline sees no hard and fast distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology: "biblical theology involves the systematization of the covenantal data under relatively broad historical epochs."

Vos's biblical-theological identification of the church as a pilgrim people has made the most indelible imprint on the OPC, even while it has provoked some of the OPC's strongest critics. American Christians are prone to judge the success of the church in terms of its influence in the world. For this reason, many have dismissed the OPC as "irrelevant" for its want of a social or cultural agenda. Seen from an eschatological perspective, however, it is more accurate to say that the OPC is committed to the "irrelevance" of the world to the church.

The OPC has been molded by Vos's reminder that, as part of the new eschatological order unveiled in the coming of Christ, the church locates its hope in a kingdom that is not of this world, a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Secured in a life that is hid in Christ in the heavenlies, the church longs for the return of her Lord. This eschatological location of the church as the kingdom inaugurated and awaiting consummation is the legacy of Vos. For that source of solid hope and comfort, the OPC abandoned aspirations for earthly glory. A half-century after Vos's death, political gospels and this-worldly agendas continue to tempt the church. Reformed orthodoxy needs to give a fresh hearing to Geerhardus Vos, perhaps now more than ever.

— D.G. Hart & John Muether, Ordained Servant, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 1999.

Sympathy for the "Devil"?

Frame's flawed and floundering formulation:

"I think it better to regard anyone as Reformed who is a member in good standing of a Reformed church. I realize there is some ambiguity here, for we must then ask, what is a really Reformed church? Different people will give different answers. But, as I said above, I don’t think that the definition has to be, or can be, absolutely precise. The concept, frankly, has 'fuzzy boundaries,' as some linguists and philosophers say.

We should also accept as Reformed people those who hold to generally Reformed convictions, but are members of non-Reformed churches. Again, the phrase 'generally Reformed' indicates that the concept is not precise.

Then, what is the Reformed faith? It is the consensus of Reformed believers.

...to define the Reformed faith as a form of evangelicalism. First, let me say that my definition is a definition of the place of the Reformed faith in the American context. I apologize if in previous writings I have not made that clear. My definition would not be useful in a culture that had not experienced the evangelical movement or something like it. In the American context, Evangelicals are orthodox Protestant Christians, Christians who maintain belief in the supernatural work of God to save us from sin, including Jesus’ virgin birth, miracles, atoning death, resurrection, and return. The Reformed also maintain these doctrines (with some slippage on both sides). Since they hold every doctrine that defines evangelicalism, they can be regarded as evangelicals. But of course they also believe some things that do not define evangelicalism, which makes them a distinct strand of the evangelical movement."

— John Frame, Review of R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice.

Reeks of postmodernism.

Good discussion of the review here.

Doctrine and The Worst Sin of All

"For Machen, however, the Bible contains truth, and as such is ineradicably doctrinal. Indeed, one overarching concern in Christianity and Liberalism is simply the vital importance of Christian doctrine to the church: doctrine, he makes clear, is the very heart of Christian testimony. Claiming to honor the Bible without synthesizing the Bible’s teaching into doctrine, into systematic theology, is not really honoring the Bible at all, for the Bible teaches truth, truth which is coherent and can be articulated; and regarding with indifference those things which the Bible clearly sees as important is, in some sense, the worst sin of all."

— Carl Trueman, The Second Most Important Book You Will Ever Read, Themelios 33.2 (2008).

The Trueman—Goldsworthy Debate (Biblical Theology and Epistemology)

I was in the midst of doing software applications deployment work at the office last night when, while waiting for my colleagues to wrap up, I came across the Trueman—Goldsworthy debate. Finding out that two of modern Christian orthodoxy's pillars—both of whom I highly esteem—had some words to say to each other really got me excited, to say the least. Though the debate occurred many years ago—year 2002, I think—the issue that was tackled seems to be possessed of a timeless nature and certainly has relevance even to the present time; the subject being biblical theology—its nature, potential dangers, and relationship to the other theological disciplines, especially systematic theology.

Carl Trueman gave vent to what he perceives as the danger of biblical theology's usurpation of systematic theology's place in the church's theological discourse. This he likened to a "revolution" in which the element that once was the "outsider" or the "rebel" now has become the "establishment", thereby wielding the greater influence if not the only. He rightly lamented the uncouth implementation of biblical theology by some of its proponents wherein if Christ is even made to "leap from the page", it is an unbiblical Christ that ends up flopping on the floor. He also raises the concern that an overemphasis on biblical theology has the potential of making the church lose sight of what its forefathers labored hard for, namely, the systematization of biblical doctrine in the forms of its catechisms, creeds, and confessions, thereby eroding the ground on which its faith is based as these systematics adhere to Scripture. This he calls a forsaking of "ontology" for "economy", i.e., a giving of too much import to the saving acts of God over the being of God. Finally, he calls for "balance" between biblical and systematic theology, making an appeal for the reclaiming of the ground that systematic theology supposedly lost to its biblical cousin.

Graeme Goldsworthy responds in his classic lucid, and yet very much erudite, fashion (if you've read any of his books, you know what I mean). He observes Trueman's statement of the problem as bordering on exaggeration, and that it has the potential effect of sowing a misunderstanding of the function of biblical theology in church life. In this he challenges the claim of the "establishment" status that biblical theology supposedly currently enjoys. While assenting to the possibility of the various errors (Trueman's "mediocrity") that are open to the implementation of biblical theology, this he states is not inherent to the method itself but to the improper actualization of it. And with regard to the charge that biblical theology is overshadowing systematic theology's rightful place in the theological milieu, and that there is the distinct danger of losing the heritage of the church's catechisms, creeds and confessions, with the neglect of the "ontology" of theology over its "economy", Graeme makes the case that biblical and systematic theology have never been in such a relationship of mutual exclusivity. In fact, he claims, the biblical writers, along with all of the divines of church history, utilized biblical theological method in coming up with their systematizations in what apparently is a relationship that is best described as the hermeneutical spiral. He categorically goes against the proposal of a "balance" between the two paradigms, seeing that such a balance is not to be found in Scripture or is propounded by it. Instead he advances the notion that the relationship between biblical and systematic theology is perichoretic, in that while each carries its own distinctions, an inter-penetration exists that makes the realization of one impossible without the other.

I was deeply impressed by Graeme Goldsworthy's treatment of the matter at hand, and sorely disappointed at Carl Trueman's hasty generalizations. Goldsworthy actually made an appeal to the nature of knowledge (epistemology) in his defense of biblical theology. One cannot know about categories, abstractions, and absolutes without coming to grips with particulars, specifics, and instances, and vice-versa. Scripture makes plain that the created order (particulars) bears testimony to God and His many divine attributes (abstraction), though not in a salvific way. Conversely, God's moral will (abstraction) shows us why the Decalogue, with its imperatives (particulars), is good and is to be obeyed and lived out. The relationship between induction and deduction is perichoretic. With that said, let me leave you with this wonderful quote from Goldsworthy's response:

"...you will never be a good biblical theologian if you are not also striving to be a good systematic and historical theologian, and you will never be a good systematic theologian if you ignore biblical and historical theology. Between the various theological methods (we could add pastoral theology) there is not balance but the perichoresis of the hermeneutic spiral." — Graeme Goldsworthy