Oceans Apart Order Printed Copy

Author: Karen Kingsbury
Size: 714KB | 353 pages
|

Download Read Online

Continue with

Google Twitter

Email Register

Others like oceans apart Features >>

About the Book

"Oceans Apart" by Karen Kingsbury follows the story of Connor Evans, a man who leaves his family in search of his birth parents. As he navigates this journey, he must confront unresolved issues and come to terms with his past. The novel explores themes of family, forgiveness, and redemption through a heartfelt and emotional storyline.

Cornelius Van Til

Cornelius Van Til (May 3, 1895 – April 17, 1987) was a Dutch-American reformed philosopher and theologian, who is credited as being the originator of modern presuppositional apologetics. Biography Van Til (born Kornelis van Til in Grootegast, Netherlands) was the sixth son of Ite van Til, a dairy farmer, and his wife Klasina van der Veen. At the age of ten, he moved with his family to Highland, Indiana. He was the first of his family to receive a higher education. In 1914 he attended Calvin Preparatory School, graduated from Calvin College, and attended one year at Calvin Theological Seminary, where he studied under Louis Berkhof, but he transferred to Princeton Theological Seminary and later graduated with his PhD from Princeton University. He began teaching at Princeton Seminary, but shortly went with the conservative group that founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years. He taught apologetics and systematic theology there until his retirement in 1972 and continued to teach occasionally until 1979. He was also a minister in the Christian Reformed Church in North America and in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark–Van Til Controversy. Work Van Til drew upon the works of Dutch Calvinist philosophers such as D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, Herman Dooyeweerd, and Hendrik G. Stoker and theologians such as Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper to devise a novel Reformed approach to Christian apologetics, one that opposed the traditional methodology of reasoning on the supposition that there is a neutral middle-ground, upon which the non-Christian and the Christian can agree. His contribution to the Neo-Calvinist approach of Dooyeweerd, Stoker and others, was to insist that the "ground motive" of a Christian philosophy must be derived from the historical terms of the Christian faith. In particular, he argued that the Trinity is of indispensable and insuperable value to a Christian philosophy. In Van Til: The Theologian, John Frame, a sympathetic critic of Van Til, claims that Van Til's contributions to Christian thought are comparable in magnitude to those of Immanuel Kant in non-Christian philosophy. He indicates that Van Til identified the disciplines of systematic theology and apologetics, seeing the former as a positive statement of the Christian faith and the latter as a defense of that statement – "a difference in emphasis rather than of subject matter." Frame summarizes Van Til's legacy as one of new applications of traditional doctrines: Unoriginal as his doctrinal formulations may be, his use of those formulations – his application of them – is often quite remarkable. The sovereignty of God becomes an epistemological, as well as a religious and metaphysical principle. The Trinity becomes the answer to the philosophical problem of the one and the many. Common grace becomes the key to a Christian philosophy of history. These new applications of familiar doctrines inevitably increase [Christians'] understanding of the doctrines themselves, for [they] come thereby to a new appreciation of what these doctrines demand of [them]. Similarly, Van Til's application of the doctrines of total depravity and the ultimate authority of God led to his reforming of the discipline of apologetics. Specifically, he denied neutrality on the basis of the total depravity of man and the invasive effects of sin on man's reasoning ability and he insisted that the Bible, which he viewed as a divinely inspired book, be trusted preeminently because he believed the Christian's ultimate commitment must rest on the ultimate authority of God. As Frame says elsewhere, "the foundation of Van Til's system and its most persuasive principle" is a rejection of autonomy since "Christian thinking, like all of the Christian life, is subject to God's lordship". However, it is this very feature that has caused some Christian apologists to reject Van Til's approach. For instance, D. R. Trethewie describes Van Til's system as nothing more than "a priori dogmatic transcendental irrationalism, which he has attempted to give a Christian name to." Kuyper–Warfield synthesis It is claimed that Fideism describes the view of fellow Dutchman Abraham Kuyper, whom Van Til claimed as a major inspiration. Van Til is seen as taking the side of Kuyper against his alma mater, Princeton Seminary, and particularly against Princeton professor B. B. Warfield. But Van Til described his approach to apologetics as a synthesis of these two approaches: "I have tried to use elements both of Kuyper's and of Warfield's thinking." Greg Bahnsen, a student of Van Til and one of his most prominent defenders and expositors, wrote that "A person who can explain the ways in which Van Til agreed and disagreed with both Warfield and Kuyper, is a person who understands presuppositional apologetics." With Kuyper, Van Til believed that the Christian and the non-Christian have different ultimate standards, presuppositions that color the interpretation of every fact in every area of life. But with Warfield, he believed that a rational proof for Christianity is possible: "Positively Hodge and Warfield were quite right in stressing the fact that Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason. Surely Christianity is not irrational. To be sure, it must be accepted on faith, but surely it must not be taken on blind faith. Christianity is capable of rational defense." And like Warfield, Van Til believed that the Holy Spirit will use arguments against unbelief as a means to convert non-believers. Van Til sought a third way from Kuyper and Warfield. His answer to the question "How do you argue with someone who has different presuppositions?" is the transcendental argument, an argument that seeks to prove that certain presuppositions are necessary for the possibility of rationality. The Christian and non-Christian have different presuppositions, but, according to Van Til, only the Christian's presuppositions allow for the possibility of human rationality or intelligible experience. By rejecting an absolutely rational God that determines whatsoever comes to pass and presupposing that some non-rational force ultimately determines the nature of the universe, the non-Christian cannot account for rationality. Van Til claims that non-Christian presuppositions reduce to absurdity and are self-defeating. Thus, non-Christians can reason, but they are being inconsistent with their presuppositions when they do so. The unbeliever's ability to reason is based on the fact that, despite what he believes, he is God's creature living in God's world. Hence, Van Til arrives at his famous assertion that there is no neutral common ground between Christians and non-Christians because their presuppositions, their ultimate principles of interpretation, are different; but because non-Christians act and think inconsistently with regard to their presuppositions, common ground can be found. The task of the Christian apologist is to point out the difference in ultimate principles, and then show why the non-Christian's reduce to absurdity. Transcendental argument The substance of Van Til's transcendental argument is that the doctrine of the ontological Trinity, which is concerned with the reciprocal relationships of the persons of the Godhead to each other without reference to God's relationship with creation, is the aspect of God's character that is necessary for the possibility of rationality. R. J. Rushdoony writes, "The whole body of Van Til's writings is given to the development of this concept of the ontological Trinity and its philosophical implications." The ontological Trinity is important to Van Til because he can relate it to the philosophical concept of the "concrete universal" and the problem of the One and the many. For Van Til, the ontological Trinity means that God's unity and diversity are equally basic. This is in contrast with non-Christian philosophy in which unity and diversity are seen as ultimately separate from each other: The whole problem of knowledge has constantly been that of bringing the one and the many together. When man looks about him and within him, he sees that there is a great variety of facts. The question that comes up at once is whether there is any unity in this variety, whether there is one principle in accordance with which all these many things appear and occur. All non-Christian thought, if it has utilized the idea of a supra-mundane existence at all, has used this supra-mundane existence as furnishing only the unity or the a priori aspect of knowledge, while it has maintained that the a posteriori aspect of knowledge is something that is furnished by the universe. Pure unity with no particularity is a blank, and pure particularity with no unity is chaos. Frame says that a blank and chaos are "meaningless in themselves and impossible to relate to one another. As such, unbelieving worldviews always reduce to unintelligible nonsense. This is, essentially, Van Til's critique of secular philosophy (and its influence on Christian philosophy)." Karl Barth Van Til was also a strident opponent of the theology of Karl Barth, and his opposition led to the rejection of Barth's theology by many in the Calvinist community. Despite Barth's assertions that he sought to base his theology solely on the 'Word of God', Van Til believed that Barth's thought was syncretic in nature and fundamentally flawed because, according to Van Til, it assumed a Kantian epistemology, which Van Til argued was necessarily irrational and anti-Biblical. Influence Many recent theologians have been influenced by Van Til's thought, including John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, Rousas John Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer, as well as many of the current faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, and other Calvinist seminaries. He was also the personal mentor of K. Scott Oliphint late in life.

No Holiness, No Heaven

No one will be in heaven who did not walk in good works on earth. In other words, and in the words of Hebrews 12:14, there is a “holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Abbreviated, “no holiness, no heaven.” In directness, “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26 NASB). In confession, “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love” (Westminster Confession). In commandment: “Work out [literally, produce] your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). “No one will be in heaven who did not walk in good works on earth.” In illustration: “Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away . . . and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:2, 6). In lyric, “He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake” (Psalm 23:3). In repetition: no one will be in heaven who did not walk in good works on earth. Two Familiar Heresies Now, to say this, I hasten to avoid a different heresy: no one will be in heaven based upon good works. “By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). “A person is not justified by works of the law” (Galatians 2:16). Christ’s righteousness, not ours, justifies entirely. The man, woman, or child who believes in him who justifies the ungodly shall be counted righteous before God. His blood brings us near to God, his righteousness imputed to us is needed. In other words, him, him, him — not us — so that no man may boast. Although the Christian walks into the narrow path full of good works, God prepared them for him to walk in beforehand. So here we have it: no one will be in heaven who did not walk in faith-producing good works on earth — “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26) or “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6) — and no one in heaven will be there on the basis of his good works. One heresy says it doesn’t matter if you work, run, or fight at all; the other, that your working, running, and fighting earn your place before a holy God. James calls the first the faith of demons (James 2:19). Paul calls the second the faith of the bewitched (Galatians 3:1). One error sits comfortably among evangelicals; the other among Catholics. It is the dead faith closer to home that I wish to address. Once Saved, Always Saved Dead faith (which produces no works) is not necessarily a silent faith. It often rehearses (and abuses) golden mantras such as, “Once saved, always saved,” putting a jewel, as it were, up a pig’s snout. “Nothing shall separate his true children from the love of God; the Shepherd will lose none of his sheep.” Properly understood, “Once saved, always saved” would stand for the amazing truth that from the vantage point of the eternal mountain of God, his children, predestined to be saved before time began, will not fall away — he will bring them home. He carved their names in the book of life; his Son has atoned for their actual sins; he seals them with his very Spirit as a down payment — the Spirit that shall surely bring his work to completion at the day of Christ Jesus. Nothing shall separate his true children from the love of God; the Shepherd will lose none of his sheep. From this, however, some draw crooked lines. Instead of deducing with Paul, “God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are his,’ and, ‘Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity’” (2 Timothy 2:19), some conclude that the perseverance of the saints is optional. They may imagine God putting souls on a conveyor belt to glory. “Once saved, always saved” — no matter how deeply compromised their lives may be. In so doing they pit the essential doctrine of justification against the blood, sweat, and toil of the essential doctrine of sanctification, judging the first to eclipse the second. We do not need holiness, it is thought, because once saved, always saved. And by “saved” we cannot help but conclude they include “saved from needing to obey.” Texts that speak conditionally of inheriting eternal life (conditions God empowers his true children to meet) bewilder dead faith. They cannot stomach texts about the need to continue stable and steadfast in the faith, to endure to the end, to stand firm through trials, to put the flesh to death by the Spirit, to work out one’s own salvation with fear and trembling, to make our calling and election sure through energetic striving (2 Peter 1:1–11). The shouts of their dead faith cry “Lord, Lord” while they disobey him with their lives. Theirs is a faith I knew too well. A faith soberly depicted by the character Talkative in Bunyan’s animated theology, The Pilgrim’s Progress. Along the Road with Talkative A man named Faithful, in Bunyan’s allegory, possessed a faith that worked, while Talkative possessed a faith that did not. They had a conversation along the way. Faithful: Are you going to the heavenly country? Talkative: I am going to that same place. Talkative believes himself headed to the Celestial City. And what’s more, he speaks very Christianly, possessing excellent Reformed doctrine: By this [profitable talk of the Scriptures] a man may learn the necessity of the new birth; the insufficiency of our works; the need of Christ’s righteousness, and so forth. Besides, by this a man may learn what it is to repent, to believe, to pray, to suffer, or the like; by this also a man may learn what are the great promises and consolations of the Gospel, to his own comfort. Further, by this a man may learn to refute false opinions; to vindicate the truth; and also to instruct the ignorant. Bunyan teaches that proper orthodoxy communicated well is not a sufficient sign in itself of living faith. Faithful, not knowing the report of Talkative, whispers to his companion, Christian, “What a brave companion have we got! Surely this man will make a very excellent pilgrim.” At this, Christian modestly smiles and answers plainly, This man with whom you are so taken will beguile with this tongue of his twenty of them that know him not. . . . He is best abroad; near home he is ugly enough. . . . Religion hath no place in his heart, or house, or conversation; all he hath lieth in his tongue, and his religion is to make a noise therewith. His Christianity lies only in his tongue. How does Christian know this? “I have been in his family and have observed him both at home and abroad.” The tree is known by its fruit. He is “a saint abroad, and a devil at home.” Like the Pharisees of Jesus’s day, he says much, but obeys little (Matthew 23:3). “The new covenant promises Christians with new hearts will hate their sin and feel it to be the shame it is.” It is easy for us to imagine that God has saved us because we know right doctrine. Talkative’s great religion of tongue proved untrue in his loves, his relationships, his life. He talks of truth he was never changed by. The grace he speaks of never trained him to say no to ungodliness and to live a godly life (Titus 2:11–14). Borrowing a phrase from C.S. Lewis, he speaks of new life like “a scholar’s parrot may talk Greek.” He repeats what he overhears without knowing the reality of it, as the parrot listening to a scholar may repeat words like charis and sōtēria. Christian observes what is true of many Talkatives today: “He talks of prayer, of repentance, of faith, and of the new birth; but he knows but only to talk of them.” What a fearful place to be. Questions for Self-Examination Are you like this Talkative? I was, and God woke me from my delusion. I pray he would for others like me. Talkative, in the end, does not venture from the City of Destruction. He labels Christian and Faithful judgmental and parts from them. His words traveled beyond his faith and obedience; in the end, he was lost. He never examined himself to make sure he was in the faith and truly born again. At times, we all ask plainly, Am I born again? Christian counsels Faithful concerning Talkative, “Ask him plainly (when he has approved of it, for that he will) whether this thing be set up in his heart, house, or conversation.” Some questions Faithful and Talkative discuss are still helpful to ask today. Do you hate your sin? Not merely talk about hating it, like a hypocritical pastor who denounces the secret sin he indulges. The new covenant promises Christians with new hearts will hate their sin and feel it to be shameful: “You shall remember your ways and all your deeds with which you have defiled yourselves, and you shall loathe yourselves for all the evils that you have committed” (Ezekiel 20:43). Blessed are those who mourn for their sin (Matthew 5:4); God will not despise the heart broken over its sin (Psalm 51:17). Do you love God? Paul said as plain as day, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed” (1 Corinthians 16:22). Do you love him? Do you desire to know him? Do you love him above father, mother, spouse, child? Can you confess that his steadfast love is better than life? Do you hate your remaining sin because it is against him, your soul’s Treasure? Do you obey what you know? Jesus says, “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them” (John 13:17). “That servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating” (Luke 12:47). We can imagine we have advanced much in religion or the love of Christ because we know more and more texts on the subject. But these texts must be believed, obeyed, loved. They must take root in us. If we truly know and love him, we will keep his commandments (John 14:15; 1 John 2:3). What do others see? Bunyan writes, “A work of grace in the soul discovers itself either to him that hath it, or to standers by.” Other Christians’ judgments are not infallible, but they can help to reveal blind spots to us (and signs of grace) we do not see in ourselves. As the Faithfuls and Christians today keep along the narrow way with the Book in their hands and love in their hearts, they will do good in this world. They will because God is working in them to will and to work for his good pleasure, producing the fruit of the Spirit in them. They must do good, in fact, because they have a Book of promises commanding, warning, and wooing them onward to the Celestial City. No one in heaven will be there on the basis of his good works, and no one will be in heaven who did not walk in good works on earth. So, we press onward in holiness toward our heavenly home because Jesus has already made us his own. Article by Greg Morse