|
Logic
It is striking that right away in his book on systematic theology, Professor Cornelius
Van Til challenged
the validity of the basic law of logic, namely, the law of contradiction. The
effort behind systematic theology is to have a logical presentation of
theological truth. But, if the basic law of logic were flawed, it would flaw the
effort to have a systematic theology.
When the laws of logic are applied as it suits the fancy of the exegete, the exegete's work become irrational and
"autonomous," not subject to the laws of thought implanted by God within
human nature. By doing this, Van Til set himself apart from the revelation of God in nature and
scripture. In fact, if we entertain thoughts that violate the law of
contradiction, we commit sin—an intellectual sin.
In a fundamental sense, if the law of contradiction should not be
appealed to, then Van Til's sentences could mean the exact opposite of what he wrote.
"Christians should therefore never
[not ever] appeal to the law of contradiction as something
that, as such, determines what can or cannot be true" 1
Ignoring the law of contradiction, his claim could also mean,
Christians
should therefore ever appeal to the law of contradiction as
something that, as such, determines what can or cannot be true.
The truth of all propositional sentences depend upon the universality of the law of
contradiction. His sentence is self-contradictory, because it instructs the reader that they should never appealed to
law of contradiction in determining what can or cannot be true. Yet, his sentence
must appeal to the law of contradiction to be true. If the law
of contradiction could never be appealed to for his
sentence, then the reader could never tell the meaning of his
sentence. Does he mean never [not ever] or ever?
The law of contradiction, therefore, as we know it, is but the
expression on a created level of the internal coherence of God's nature. Christians
should therefore never appeal to the law of contradiction as something that, as
such, determines what can or cannot be true. 2
In the next paragraph, Van Til continues to miss the universal
nature of the law of contradiction that applies to any statement whether profane
or sacred. It is not an optional law that is applied at the discretion of a
thinker or writer.
Christians should employ the law of contradiction, whether
positively or negatively, as a means by which to systematize the facts of
revelation. Whether these facts are found in the universe at large or in the
Scripture. The law of contradiction cannot be thought of as operating anywhere
except against the background of the nature of God. Since, therefore, God
created this world, it would be impossible that this created world should ever
furnish an element of reality on a par with him. The concept of creation as
entertained by Christians makes the idealist notion of logic once for all
impossible. 3
Matthew 5:37 is a scriptural reference which supports the law
of contradiction. These verses teach that our words should be "yea" or
"nay." Van Til teaches that our words may be "yea" and
"nay;" hence, he denies the law of contradiction and the scriptural admonition.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for
whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Matt 5:37 (KJV)
When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the
things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there
should be yea yea, and nay nay? But as God is true, our word toward you was
not yea and nay. 2 Cor 1:17-18 (KJV)
If the law of contradiction were not true, then both of the two
following statements would be equally true.
Those who are saved will go to heaven.
Those who are saved will not go to heaven.
P.E. Hughes wisely wrote,
When God speaks His positive does not carry a hidden negative.
And so it is also with His chosen Apostle: his word to the Corinthians is not a
mixture of yea and nay at the same time, but a faithful yea--sincere, honest,
unambiguous. 4
Trinity
It might be Van Til's "autonomous" logic that opened
the door to his heretical comments on the Holy Trinity. He teaches that God is
both one person and three persons.
We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one
person. We have noted how each attribute is co-extensive with the being of God. We
are compelled to maintain this in order to avoid the notion of an uninterpreted
being of some sort. . . .
And even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that
God is numerically one. He is one person. 5
His heretical assertion violates scripture, logic, and Christian creedal
statements.
Because Cornelius Van Til is sometimes difficult to understand,
people interpret his unintelligibility for theological profundity. He muddied the
truth with contradictions while claiming to shed light upon divine mysteries.
Friedrich Nietzsche observed.
Mystical explanations.—Mystical
explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial.6
The Athanasian Creed's fourth article states,
4. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the
Substance [Essense].
In Deity, there is one undivided Substance—God, while there are three
distinct Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The essence or substance
refers to a being's quiddity or 'whatness.' Person refers to 'who'
For example, all of humanity is of one human substance or essence. By
contrast, the individuated human substances are persons, such as John, Mary, Joe, et
cetera. In Deity there is unity in substance or essence but a trinity in
persons. The orthodox Christian view avoids tri-theism (three different
gods), and the ancient Sabellian heresy of a modalism, that is, one person
who is revealed in a trinity of modes or personalities. By not making a
clear distinction between substance and person, C. Van Til presents a misinterpreted
being, not a clarification of uninterpreted being. The Athanasian Creed
rejects Van Till's false notion of the personhood of God.
Last edited 05-27-2001
Top of Page.
|
