On Sunday, Kevin taught from Ephesians that God is absolutely holy and all
that He does is good. There is an interesting problem that comes up when you
say, “God is good,” though. There are those who deny Christ who use this
argument to attempt to make Christianity seem illogical.
They say that if we mean that whatever God does is good simply because God
does it, then good loses it’s meaning as it relates to God. Put another way,
if good just means what God does, then “God is good” simply means “God does
what God does.” This drains one of God’s key attributes of any meaning.
If instead, we say that goodness (or holiness) is a standard that is defined outside of God that God is measured by, then He would be subordinate to the definition goodness. If we accept this, He would fail to God.
So, how is an intellectually honest follower of Christ to resolve this?
It turns out that this is an ancient challenge, that goes all the back to Plato, known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma.
Greg Koukl has an excellent article that dissects this apparent dilemma and shows that Christians have nothing to fear from Plato or any other intellectual challenge to the Biblical worldview.
Just to let you know, I get a “Bad Gateway error” when trying to read the link you posted.
For my knowledge, how are you guys posting links using the allowed tags?
Hmm… It is working for me. The page is at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm.
STR is about to bring a new version of their Web site on-line; so, that might account for some accessibility issues.
The software allows “a” tags to create links, even though the fine print at the bottom says otherwise.
Your “Bad Gateway” error is, as we say in the world of software development, a “personal problem.” 😉 … At least for me, it’s working.
I happen to know there have been some problems in Internet-land recently, and STR is in the process of upgrading their web site, so there’s plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong.
To post a link, you do it like this:
<a href="(insert URL here)">(text of link goes here)</a>Y’all know I’m a big Greg Koukl fan, but the article isn’t quite as tight as I’d like it to be.
I get Greg’s point – that when we say, “God is good,” we are not saying something that identifies God, but rather, something that describes him.
In other words, we can say, “God is omnipotent,” “God is omniscient,” or “God is omnipresent.” None of those statements identify God any more than the statement, “God is good.” All of these statements address “what God is like” rather than “who God is.”
The problem comes in when you consider that when you say that God answers to some description, you have to establish what gives that description its meaning.
Where Koukl lets me down is when he tries to resolve the question, “well, what does ‘good’ mean?” He makes an appeal to intuition: we “just know” when something is good. That’s not invalid… but I’d like it to be grounded more clearly.
What if we said something like this: God defines “good” in a way that corresponds to His character. He knows what He means by “good,” and He created us with an intuitive ability to recognize “good.”
I’m still not happy with that… anybody?
Looked at how many definitions of “good” there are? When speaking of God, most people assume definitions like “pleasent, well behaved, favorable, desirable quality, serves the desired purpose or end*” but good also means “pure, honorable, competent, bountiful, true, and complete” – more accurate of what I know of God.
*Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable: Is this a good dress for the party?
To think that we may somehow apply this definition to God is frightening. Is God a “suitable” god for you? Will He serve your purposes the way you think He should? Whoa.
I think that all people do have an intuitive sense of ‘good,’ although imperfect. I think this is part of what we see in Romans 1 where man can see the glory of God and yet suppresses it. Ask the most rank atheist if torturing babies for fun is ‘good.’ He will say no, even though his worldview gives him no grounding for it. But his moral intuition screams out that some things are right and some things are wrong. Even though he denies it, he was made in the image of God and has a certain amount of moral machinery built into his consciences (although seared and suppressed).
Yeah, I think that Koukl was on a role until he tried to support his argument using Abraham’s intuition. First of all, whose to say that Abraham did not have the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 18? Maybe he knew God was good through the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.
I think that “good= God’s character as it is presented in the whole of Scripture.” Any external definition must be rejected if in conflicts with the testimony of scripture. Therefore we are broading the argument from “good=good” to “good=whole Bible’s definition of good.”
I agree with you Eric, the non-believer has an understanding of good (proven by Romans 1) but I would not equate this (as Koukl) does with intuition (I think this is a poor choice of terms). Call it conscience that is there because we are made in the image of God.
It seems that Koukl is trying to avoid circularity in his definition of good, but when you deal with the problem of ultimately defining good, this is unavoidable. He does not need to try and do intellectual backflips to avoid the circular argument “good=God” (which is an appropriate argument that even the Bible itself uses) he simply needs to broaden his argument to the one I suggested above.
IMHO
How does the Bible employ circular logic?
If it does, would that not make it logically flawed? Or are you saying that there’s nothing wrong with circular arguments?
I apologize for the lack of clarity. Yes, as a presuppositonalist, I believe that there is nothing wrong with circular arguments when one is communicating on the ultimate level of making an argument.
Or to say it another way, I believe that all arguments are ultimately circular no matter what belief system one chooses to hold.
This deals with the oft taken for granted area of systematic theology known as Epistemology (how we know what we know).
By nature, man is not autonomous and therefore, he relies on revelation (authority) to help him to rationally interpret his world.
The question is, what authority is he relying on?
If you will back every argument up to its ultimate level and trace whose authority the argument is basing itself upon, you will find two options (using the definition of good as an example):
1.) Good is good based on the criteria that I have deemed acceptable. Well, why should we trust your criteria? Because I said so.
Or,
2.) Good is good because God said so and he sets the criteria based on his character. Why should we trust his criteria? Because he said so.
I find God more trustworthy given that he is omnipotent and omniscient.
All arguments can be boiled down to two worldviews that rely on two seperate sources of authority. The Biblical worldview and that worldview that is constructed by man.
You asked: “How does the Bible employ circular logic?” I’ll have to look for a specific example but my knee-jerk reaction to answer is that it is assumed.
(Another interesting Epistemological game- who says that circular arguments have to be flawed?)
Jason, as long as we are getting down to epistemology (which is at the heart of the matter), would you affirm the following?
This is complicated…I am admitting that up front for those of you who don’t care enough to keep reading.
God’s knowledge needs to be more explicitly stated in the definition of knowledge. God’s knowledge is the source and standard of our knowledge, and as such it is never completely the same as ours, though it is truly knowledge.
So then, I would say that there is two different kinds of knowledge: that of God and that of creatures. God’s knowledge is essentially self-knowledge. Our knowledge needs a reference point beyond ourselves. That reference point is God’s revelation found both in scripture and in nature. These two types of knowledge are not on a continuum. There is a fundamental difference and distinction in Creator-creature types of knowledge. (All this is found in Calvin, Van Til, Frame, & other reformed thinkers- most importantly, it is seen in scripture)
So, to answer your question more directly, no. I would not affirm the statement above because it merely implies God’s knowledge and it seems to ignore natural revelation.
I would opt for a Creator-creature distinction in types of knowledge. Why do you ask?
I’m trying to finally pinpoint the divide between your system of thinking and mine. I’d like to ask a follow-on question…
Given that some things can be know from general revelation (not deduced from the Scriptures), is this truth accessible to unregenerate man?
By the way, I agree that God is omniscient (He knows and believes all true propositions) and we are finite and not omniscient. I am not aware of any Biblical passage that distinguishes this as two types of knowledge, though.
Yes, the Bible teaches that general revelation is accessible to unregenerate man. Romans 1:18-21 states, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened” (ESV; bold mine).
Of course, natural revelation is limited because it does not reveal salvation. The plan of salvation is found only in special revelation (Christ himself and the scriptures).
Also, after the fall of Adam, man often sinfully misinterprets natural revelation. Therefore, we need and must use(as Calvin stated) “the spectacles of scripture” to help us to interpret natural revelation correctly. That is not to say that God does not allow us some common grace insights from nature that are true- that is just to say that we often misinterpret nature.
For example, I don’t need the scriptures to know without a doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. But, if the scriptures interpreted this truth for me by revealing that truth to me, then I am bound to submit- especially when I might have sinfully misinterpreted natural revelation as saying 2 + 2= 3.
Earlier, the point that I was attempting to make was not that God is omniscient and we are not, but rather that there is a fundamental difference in the types of knowledge we possess. Our knowledge is not simply a lesser degree of God’s knowledge- it is fundamentally different. He is the source- we are the image. (But I don’t want to side track you from your questions concerning my beliefs)
I agree that the scriptures dosen’t state it the way I framed it above, but like most of our systematic categories it is assumed in scripture. (Another example would be the doctrine of the Trinity).
OK. But I can make a case for the Trinity from the Scriptures. Can you do that for this view of two types of knowledge?
Yes. Would you like me to, or are you just asking?
Yes. I’d like to hear it. Thanks.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you…lot of work going on.
The Creator-creature distinction has always been articulated in the Reformed faith under various terminologies. There are two levels of knowledge, original and derivative, or to say it another way- absolute and subordinate. I will articulate this in this way:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Therefore, we can say that man’s being is analogical of God’s being. Man is a copy. Everything with respect to God is absolute and everything with respect to man is derivative. Man cannot know anything in the ultimate comprehensive sense of the term, but we can be assured that what we do know is true (which means that the Christian cannot be a skepticist in light of Rom. 1 particularly). This is fundamentally the Christian doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God. The Christian can apprehend God, but he cannot comprehend God.
“God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything” (1 John 3:20).
“Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure” (Psalm 147:5).
“And [Peter] said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you” (John 21:17).
“And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:12-13).
All of these verses teach that God has an exhaustive knowledge of all things and that by implication, we do not. Therefore, our knowledge is fundamentally different. If this is true, then when God and man think about a particular thing (a dog for example) then their thoughts about that dog are never identical. God’s thoughts are that of the creator and man’s are that of a creature. As Van Til stated, “To say that the human mind can know even one proposition in its minimal significance with the same depth of meaning which God knows that proposition is and attack on the Creator-creature relationship and therewith an attack on the heart of Christianity” (Introduction to Systematic Theology,164-165).
Jason, thanks for the response. Each of your Biblical references speaks to quantity of knowledge, and not quality of it (as if there was such a thing-it sounds like a category error to me). They simply support the classic definition of omniscience.
All you have to support the view of different kinds of knowledge is Van Til’s philosophical system, which seems to rely on a bald assertion.
This simply doesn’t follow. I think I’m beginning to see why Van Til attempts to hold himself above the need to defend his ideas with rational argument (affirming circular reasoning and the like).
I agree that these verses are talking about the quantity of knowledge, and I was aware of that as I quoted them.
How does this weaken my argument about general knowledge?
Where did you read that Van Til does not support rational arugments?
Please help me understand the reason why you think Van Til’s quote “doesn’t follow.” It is obvious that I feel that it does, so show me how I am using this quote in the wrong context.
Eric, I have to say that you stated something I believe is inaccurate and unfair. You stated, “I think I’m beginning to see why Van Til attempts to hold himself above the need to defend his ideas with rational argument.”
This is wrong and I feel that this reflects the fact that you really have not read Van Til except through the lense of someone who is critiquing him.
At least give him (and me for that matter) enough credit to know that we realize rational arguments (or the justification of knowledge) is necessary. We are not irrationalists- nor fideists. Despite what Sproul may say.
The fact that I referenced Romans 1 above proves this. I also have already spelled out for you a presuppostionalists view of natural revelation. I feel misunderstood and often dismissed as the result.
Most of the academic Reformed world has accepted and readily agrees that presuppositionalism is the apologetic method that is consistent with Reformed Theology. I encourage you to read these guys, even if you disagree. Surely they have some common grace insights, right? I wouldn’t throw out reading Sproul, Gerstner, Geisler, William Lane Craig, Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, and the like simply because I don’t agree with them on every point. Nor would I trust their critics to accurately represent their teachings unless I had read them myself and therefore had some way to know for sure if they were being represented well.
It shows that your argument is a philosophical one, not a biblical one. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong–just that doesn’t come from the Scriptures.
From the acknowledgement that his system relies on circular reasoning.
Maybe it is better stated that this is an assertion without grounds or justification.
Most of what I know of Van Til’s philosophy comes from you making claims here, not from his critics.
I’ve never heard Sproul talk about Van Til or presupositionalism (although I am aware that he has written a book in defense of classical apologetics). I’m basing my judgement on what you are putting forth here and on previous topics.
I believe the Van Til form of presuppositionalism is a small minority of the reformed world.
Also, you seem to think that I have refused to read (or that I throw out) folks that I disagree with. I wonder where you came to this conclusion. In fact I started the Frame book last night.
In virtually every case where the presuppositionalism topic has come up, you have been the aggressor, putting forth that some question I put forth was invalid (as here), that my method of approaching unbelievers was dishonoring to God, that my epistemology was unbiblical, etc. That is perfectly fine, and I’ve even invited those challenges. But the one who makes the claim bears the burden of making the case. You’ve got to come with the goods. My lack of reading Van Til is not an argument.
I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but I have come to realize that we are not going to be able to come to terms. I don’t think the philosophical system that you insist on coheres to reality. I don’t doubt your sincerity or your desire to be true to the Scriptures, but I think that the Van Til system does exactly what it claims to be a reaction against–a philosophical system that takes preeminence over the Scriptures. I realize that you do not accept that. I’m not ready to lay out my case systematically at this point, but I still plan to in the future.
Concerning the scriptures I quoted: you think that my use of this scriptures to say that there is a quantitative difference in God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge is a philosphical argument?
Van Til’s system relies on circular arguments on the ultimate level only. Do you understand what I mean by that, because I do get the feeling you dismiss this without understanding it. (I imagine you may have read Frame on this by now due to the fact that he discusses this in the first chapter).
I’ll let Van Til argue his own point concerning the quote I used, his books are easy to get. We can throw it out for purposes of this discussion- I did not mean it as a distraction.
Concerning your statement that most of what you know about presuppositionalism comes from me: I think that one or two links defining presuppositionalism have appeared on this blog that have presented the view far more exhaustively than I have. Each time those links pointed to pages written by critics of presuppositionalism.
In the future, if I do as you claim I did, and use an irrationalist argument- then by all means please stop our discussion and deal with my comments immediately until we fully understand each other. I do not support irrationalism in any way and am not aware that I have used such arguments.
Obviously, the acceptance of Van Til’s system being widespread is easy to prove. Go on Westminster Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Covenant Seminary’s webpages and you will see that the three big Reformed Seminaries all offer courses on Van Til’s apologetics. Westminster and Covenant make you take a course on Van Til’s apologetic your first semester because they deem it so valuable for interpreting scripture. RTS offers courses on presuppositionalism as well as courses taught from a Classical perspective on apologetics. This is due to the fact that the Classical system is compatable with presuppositionalism, though presuppositionalism is not compatable with Classical apologetics. Let me ask you, is it a vocal minority that is teaching such classes?
I think your lack of reading Van Til is an argument, but I apologize for the fact that I accused you of throwing these guys out. I overstated my point and it simply was not true considering the fact that you are reading Frame.
I would ask you to substantiate your claims that my system is a philosophical commitment rather than a biblical one- but it seems you want to do that given time. Fair enough. Read Frame and let me know what you think.
Maybe we cannot come to terms, but I would like to learn how to better interact with someone who I already know has a heart for God and the scriptures, and yet still disagrees with me. One thing that I have gained from all you guys is that I am learning to be a better communicator and a more humble thinker. That is worth a lot to me.
Sorry, I should have been more clear on this. What I’m saying is that
the Scriptures support the idea of quantitative difference in knowledge
between God and man. God knows exhaustively, while we know finitely.
This leaves you with the classic definition of omniscience, which I
affirm (of course). To go from a quantitative difference to a
qualitative difference, you are taking the Biblical concept of
omniscience and extending it through what amount to philosophical
arguments (because God is infinite, and we are finite, therefore…). As
I said, that alone doesn’t make them wrong. If the weight of reason makes those extensions necessary, then fine. As you said, this is the case with the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t see how the argument from contingency gets you to the different kinds of knowledge. If you simply define the distinction as a proposition held by an omniscient being versus a proposition held by a finite being, then it seems we are back to a tautology, which brings us back to the vicious cycle of circular arguments.
By this, do you mean that presuppositionalism allows for the classic
method, but not the other way around? If so, I find that pretty
interesting because you have been the one charging that my (and my kind’s) approach is unbiblical and dishonoring to God. This is largely based on the (what I hold to be) a straw-man argument that to reason with the unbeliever concedes moral neutrality. This is what Frame opens with in the first chapter of his Apologetics book. I call it a straw-man because he simply states that reasoning with the unbeliever affirms moral neutrality, then spends pages knocking down the concept of moral neutrality, which I never actually affirmed.
As to the issue of reformed academic acceptance of Van Til’s system, I suppose I should have read a stronger sense into ‘academic’ and ‘reformed.’ I was thinking more in terms of general, practicing mindshare. This would include those who follow one system versus the other. Also, I was thinking of ‘reformed’ in the popular (soteriological) sense, meaning anyone with a robust concept of God’s sovereignty in election (with it’s direct bearing on apologetics). You probably meant it in the more technical sense as an entire system, which implies Covenant Theology, infant baptism, and the like. Given that, you may well be right. I really don’t have a basis to judge.
Fair enough, but you have also posted links to articles defending your form of presuppositionalism.
Nope. I didn’t even know how to link until the top of this thread. I have referenced books, that is all.
At the risk of being petty, Reprint your comment from Refuting the Problem of Evil. Part 4…
No, if I am wrong, then that should be brought to my attention it is not petty. I didn’t remember doing this because I knew that I didn’t know the tags for linking…forgot I did it in text. Thanks for pointing out my error. I even went back and read the link because I could not remember it- it is a pretty long treatment of presuppositionalism. I apologize.
Sorry that I missed your previous post and therefore didn’t deal with some of your questions.
For clarification: By The Reformed Tradition I do mean that historical worldview/hermeneutical system that has been taught throughout church history. You are right, we meant it in a different way. Reformed Baptists certianly stand in this traditon in their doctrine of Sotieriology (the most important doctrine), but probably not in any other way…maybe in Covenant Theology, but that is debatable due to the infant baptism issue.
I will concede that I made more a philosophical case from the scriptures on omniscience, but I think they are rational conclusions in the same way we make rational conclusions about the doctrine of the Trinity (you are willing to concede this is alright to do but it sounds like you don’t agree with the conclusions that I am making). That is fine. Just let me ask you, why are the quantitative differences and qualitative differences mutually exclusive in the example we are discussing? It seems one has bearing on the other. Am I wrong for reaching this conclusion? (We can leave this discussion for the time being if you want- I would rather focus on my questions below.)
Another clarification: I don’t believe that the Classical system of apologetics is unbiblical or immoral- only certain assumptions that can accompany that system. I believe that moral neutrality is condemned from scripture, but you say that you don’t believe in moral neutrality, therefore our discussion is not one of moral concern. Possibly my aggressiveness in arguing has lead you to believe that I think you are wrong on a moral level. For that I apologize.
As for Frame: I don’t think that he said that to reason with an unbeliever concedes moral neutrality (it would be hard to write a book on how to argue with the unbeliever if that were true), and I never meant to say that in any of my posts. Tell me what page you see that on (I have the book). I thought his point was how you reason with the unbeliever can possibly concede moral neutrality.