JOHN FRAME: CORNELIUS VAN TIL’S VIEW OF REVELATION
(John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought ,
Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995, pp. 115-129. 林慈信譯。)
As we have seen, Van Til’s doctrine of analogical knowledge can be summarized by saying (1) that God’s thoughts are distinct from man’s, as Creator from creature, and (2) that man is to think God’s thoughts after him. … We must now explore the second.
Think God’s Thoughts After Him Means:
Thinking Must Submit to Revelation
For Van Til, “thinking God’s thoughts after him” is first of all thinking according to divine revelation. In this chapter, we shall discuss general and special revelation. In the next chapters, we shall explore the implications of revelation for epistemology: the roles of presuppositions, reason and logic, and theological systems.
改革宗傳統的普遍啟示與特殊啟示觀
General Revelation, Special Revelation
In the Reformed Tradition
Van Til’s view of revelation is essentially that of Calvin and the Reformed tradition, especially including Kuyper, Bavinck, and Warfield. There is “natural” or “general” revelation in all of creation, including man, who is God’s image. This revelation indicates God’s nature and his moral demands (Rom. 1:18-20, 32). After man sinned, the message of God’s grace was given in additional “special” revelation, communicated through theophany (including the incarnation of the Son of God), prophecy, and miracle, and eventually committed to writing in Scripture. Scripture is God’s Word, infallible and inerrant in its original manuscripts. (Van Til’s view of revelation is expounded in greatest detail in IST, 62-158. See also CA, 23-37; CTK, 25-71; PDS; NS; IW.)
As Van Til relates these doctrines to his own epistemological and apologetic concerns, however, new emphases and insights emerge. In what follows, I will focus on what I take to be Van Til’s distinctive contributions to the church’s thinking about revelation.
GENERAL REVELATION
Van Til is known for the view that all apologetic witness must be based on presuppositions drawn from Scripture, rather than on religiously neutral argument from the facts of nature alone. Consequently, critics sometimes fault him for failing to do justice to general revelation.
Van Til on General Revelation: Necessary, Authoritative, Sufficient, Clear
It is important, then, to realize that Van Til has a very strong doctrine of general revelation. This is a major emphasis in his writings. He stresses that general revelation, like Scripture, is “necessary, authoritative, sufficient and perspicuous” for its distinctive purposes. (CA, 30-37; NS, 269-283.) As we shall see, this revelation plays a central role in his apologetic. It is because of that clear, authoritative general revelation that the unbeliever “knows” God (Rom. 1:21); and it is that revealed knowledge which he seeks to suppress. It is to that clear self-revelation of God to the unbeliever, known but suppressed, that the apologist appeals.
普遍啟示﹕啟示上帝的永恆預旨
General Revelation Reveals Eternal Decree
Such a strong doctrine of general revelation follows from Van Til’s Reformed view of divine sovereignty. If all things come to pass by God’s sovereign decree, then all things to some extent reveal that decree. Therefore, “All created reality is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God.” (CA, 33.) He explains:
This God naturally has an all-comprehensive plan for the created universe. He has planned all the relationships between all the aspects of created being. He has planned the end from the beginning. All created reality therefore actually displays this plan. It is, in consequence, inherently rational. (CA, 34-35.)
宇宙具啟示性,因為它是為上帝的榮耀而造;
亞米念主義不承認人性具啟示性
Universe Revelational, Because Created For God’s Glory;
Arminians Deny Human Nature Is Revelational
請注意﹕「如果整個宇宙是為顯明上帝的榮耀而被造─正如《聖經》不斷宣稱的,那麼,除非宇宙是上帝的啟示,它不可能顯明上帝的榮耀。」 (IST, 64. 見頁 110等。范泰爾譴責亞米念神學,因為後者否認人性本身具有啟示性。按照亞米念主義的看法,由於人的自由意志獨立於上帝的計劃之外,那麼人性就不可能是上帝的啟示、上帝的形象。既然如此,普遍啟示就不足以讓人對罪無可推諉。)
Note also, “If the whole universe was created to show forth the glory of God, as the Scriptures constantly say that it was, then it could not do this unless it was a revelation of God.” (IST, 64. On p. 110… he reproaches Arminian theology because it does not see human nature itself as revelational. Since human free will, on the Arminian understanding, is independent of God’s plan, it cannot be a divine revelation, the image of God. As such, general revelation is insufficient to leave man totally without excuse for sin.)
分辨 = 歷史的關鍵
Redemptive (Special Revelation) Presupposes General Revelation;
Differentiation Key to History
A strong doctrine of general revelation is also important because the doctrine of redemptive revelation (special revelation, Scripture) presupposes it:
Being from the outset covenantal in character, the natural revelation of God to man was meant to serve as the playground for the process of differentiation that was to take place in the course of time. The covenant made with Adam was conditional. There would be additional revelation of God in nature after the action of man with respect to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (NS, 267-268. “Differentiation,” a concept explained at length in CGG, refers to the gradual manifestation in history of the people of God in distinction from the reprobate world.)
After Fall, New Content in General Revelation: God’s Wrath
That additional revelation was a revelation of wrath (Rom. 1:18), but “together with God’s wrath, his grace is also manifest.” God’s common grace is manifested to Noah through the sign of the rainbow. But beyond this, God proclaims saving grace in Christ. That revelation comes through prophecy and miracle. Van Til explains: “The forces of nature are always at the beck and call of the power of differentiation that works toward redemption and reprobation. It is the idea of a supernatural-natural revelation that comes to such eloquent expression in the Old Testament, and particularly in the Psalms.” (NS, 268-269.)
來理解普遍啟示
Before And After Fall, Man NeedsSpecial Revelation (Thought-Communicatoin)
To Understand General Revelation
Van Til, therefore, insists that general and special revelation are integrated, rather than sharply distinguished. “Even in paradise,” to use a common Van Tillian phrase, man “could read nature aright only in connection with and in the light of supernatural positive revelation.” (DF2, 106; cf. CTK, 29-3. IST, 68, 162, 189. …) After the Fall, that supernatural thought-communication, now a “special revelation,” became all the more necessary, since fallen man naturally distorted the truth of general revelation (Rom. 1:18-32).
Special Revelation Presupposes General Revelation
At the same time, supernatural thought-communication also presupposes general revelation and therefore cannot be understood without it. Natural revelation, therefore, bears the four attributes traditionally ascribed to Scripture. Like Scripture, natural revelation is necessary, authoritative, sufficient, and perspicuous.
1. Necessity of General Revelation
General revelation is necessary, because “for the supernatural to appear as supernatural the natural had to appear as really natural. … There had to be regularity if there was to be a genuine exception.” (NS, 269-270.) And God’s commandments concerning particulars of human life (Van Til speaks here of the commandment concerning the tree of knowledge in Gen. 2:17) must, if they are to serve as “examples” for our obedience in other areas, be exceptional.
The relation between the natural and the supernatural applies both before and after the Fall. But after the Fall, another distinction enters: “The natural must appear as in need of redemption. … The Biblical miracles of healing point to the regeneration of all things.” (NS, 270-271.) So, it is necessary to have a world cursed by sin in order to show by contrast the special plan of God’s redemption. That plan is shown both by God’s saving deeds and by his saving words.
2. Authority of General Revelation
普遍啟示是具有權威性的。福音派人士有時天真地以為《聖經》比自然啟示更具權威性,但這不是《聖經》的教導。雖然《聖經》是上帝所書寫的惟一啟示,在啟示的體系裡扮演了獨特的角色,但是它的權威性並不比上帝藉著自然所賜下的啟示更高或更低。因為,兩種啟示都來自上帝-雖然一個是例外的,一個是常規性的。因此范泰爾說﹕
General revelation is also authoritative. Evangelicals sometimes think naively that Scripture has more authority than natural revelation. But that is not the teaching of Scripture. Although Scripture has a unique role to play in the organism of revelation, as the only divinely authored written revelation, it is no more or less authoritative than God’s word through nature, for both revelations, exceptional and ordinary, come from God. So, Van Til says,
The voice of authority as it came to man in this exceptional manner was to be but illustrative of the fact that, in and through the things of nature, there spoke the self-same voice of God’s command. … Man’s scientific procedure was accordingly to be marked by the attitude of obedience to God. (NS, 272-273.)
Even our sins are “revelational, that is, in their very abnormality.” (NS, 275.)
3. Sufficiency of General Revelation
General revelation is sufficient for its historical purpose, which is, of course, to provide a proper background for supernatural redemption and revelation. It is not sufficient to communicate God’s saving promises of grace, but that was not its purpose. (NS, 275-276.)
4. Perspicuity (Clarity) of General Revelation
Finally, general revelation is perspicuous, or clear. Although God is incomprehensible, and the world is cursed, nevertheless the world reveals God clearly (Rom. 1:18-21). Although clear in itself, general revelation is not properly understood by sinful man: “For any fact to be a fact at all, it must be a revelational fact. It is accordingly no easier for sinners to accept God’s revelation in nature than to accept God’s revelation in Scripture.” (NS, 280.)
總結
Summary
To summarize, general and special revelation are equally necessary, authoritative, sufficient, and perspicuous. The uniqueness of special revelation is not that it is more authoritative (or more of the other attributes) than natural revelation. Rather, special revelation is unique because it is given for distinct purposes: (1) to guide our interpretation of general revelation, (2) after the Fall, to correct our sinful distortions of general revelation, and (3) to bring us God’s promise of salvation through Christ, a
message not available through general revelation.
PERSPECTIVALISM
Three-fold Distinction; Nine Categories
Van Til develops in An Introduction to Systematic Theology his ideas on the integration of general and special revelation. Interestingly, at this point he resorts to a threefold, rather than a twofold, distinction: instead of the traditional general-special distinction, he refers to revelation from God, from nature, and from self. (This is reminiscent of the first page of Calvin’s Institutes, in which he declares the inseparability of our knowledge of self from our knowledge of God. Calvin says that each is involved in the other, and he does not know which “comes first.”)
Relating these to another triad, that of revelation about God, about nature, and about self, he ends up with nine categories: revelation about nature from nature, self, and God; revelation about self from the same three sources; and revelation about God from the same three sources. (Perhaps somewhat tongue in check (but perhaps not), Van Til gives to each relationship a technical title, in the manner of Kuyper’s Encyclopedia. For example, revelation about nature from nature is physics, and revelation about nature from self is psycho-physics. The whole chart is in IST, 64.65.)
Interdependence of Revelation and Knowledge
He argues that all three sources are involved in the knowledge of any object: but, more important, he argues that each relationship must be understood from a Christian-theistic perspective. (These insights of Van Til’s are one major source (together with others) of the “perspectivalism” expounded in my DKG – John Frame.) As we understand revelation about nature from nature, for example, it is important that we recognize that nature is created and governed by God; therefore, all facts are governed by laws, and all laws are related to facts. (Cf. chapter 5 of this volume, “The Trinity,” in which I describe the rationale for this proposition in Van Til’s doctrine of the Trinity.) And both facts and laws are what they are because of God. Apart from his plan, they could not exist in “fruitful relation” to one another.
認識上帝是必須的(優先的必須)
Van Til eschews both traditional empiricism and traditional apriorism: facts apart from laws and vice versa are equally meaningless. Without God to relate the facts and laws intelligibly to one another, knowledge is impossible. Thus we see that for Van Til, the knowledge of God enters even into our consideration of “revelation about nature from nature.” (IST, 65-66.)
宗教與科學不可分開
Religion and Science Inseparable
“Revelation about nature from self” is also important, since we learn much about nature by comparing it with ourselves. But to do this properly, we must have a biblical concept of the self. (IST, 66-67.) “Revelation about nature from God,” therefore, is crucial. It is God who tells us, both in natural and special revelation, that the world is created and cursed. We may not, therefore, compartmentalize religion and science. “Even in paradise,” God expected man to study nature in the light of his spoken word. (IST, 67-68.)
Perspicuity of General Revelation After Fall
在 《系統神學入門》 接下來的三章中(第7-9章),范泰爾討論到人類的墮落對「上帝有關自然界、人和祂自己的啟示」有何影響。我們會在本書的第三部分-知識的倫理-討論這方面的問題。大體說來,上帝的啟示仍然保持清晰。雖然它反映出神對大地的咒詛,雖然人的不義會歪曲真理,可是,人依然可以從自然啟示中有所學習。 In the next three chapters of An Introduction to Systematic Theology (7-9), Van Til discusses the effects of the Fall upon God’s revelation about nature, man, and God. We shall consider this material in Part Three, “The Ethics of Knowledge.” In general, the revelation remains clear, although it reflects the curse on the earth, and although man sinfully distorts the truth, he learns from it.
Sola Scriptura and Extrabiblical Knowledge
Certainly, Van Til believed in sola Scriptura in the traditional Protestant sense: that only Scripture serves as the supreme authority for human thought and life. We shall see in the next chapter how Scripture was Van Til’s “presupposition.” Nevertheless, Van Til did not hold a mechanical view of sola Scriptura, as if we could develop our knowledge from Scripture alone, without any use of our own reason or senses. He understood that in any instance of knowledge, there is simultaneous knowledge of God, the world, and the self. We cannot know one thing without relating it to other things and to ourselves. We cannot know God rightly unless we know him as Creator of the world and as our own Creator-Redeemer. We cannot know Scripture without relating it to ourselves and to the world of our experience. General and special revelation always work together, though certainly the latter must provide the ultimate criteria for understanding the former.
普遍啟示與特殊啟示﹕
成為整體;互為界線觀念
General Revelation and Special Revelation:
Forms One Whole, Mutual “Limiting Concepts”
我們應該特別注意,在這個思維架構裡面,從自然界而來的啟示和從人而來的啟示,並沒有與來自上帝的啟示隔離。就算是從自然界而來關於自然界的啟示,也必須以合乎《聖經》的角度去理解。誠然,自然界、人和上帝都必須在它們彼此的參照下(in light of one another)被理解。「就算在神學本身-來自上帝關於上帝的啟示-的範疇內」范泰爾說,「從『自我反省』和『思想被造世界』所得關於上帝的知識,不能人為的與得自『上帝直接傳遞(啟示)的』關於上帝的知識隨便分開。」 (IST, 67-68.) 另外,請注意﹕
We should note especially that in this scheme, revelation from nature and revelation from man are not isolated from revelation from God. Even revelation about nature from nature must be understood in a scriptural way. Indeed, nature, man, and God must all be understood in the light of one another. Even in “theology proper,” the “revelation about God from God,” said Van Til, “we cannot artificially separate the knowledge of God that man received or could receive by his reflection on man and the created universe in general, and the knowledge of God that man received from God by direct communication.” (IST, 67-68.) Note also:
What God did actually reveal directly, and what God revealed naturally to man, together form one system of truth. God had one comprehensive plan with respect to the universe inclusive of his natural and his supernatural revelation. It is of great importance that the various aspects of revelation be regarded as implying one another. They are limiting concepts of one another. (IST, 74.)
Interdependence = Perspectivalism (Frame)
當范泰爾在上面所引用的話中說,「自然啟示和超自然啟示是彼此的界線觀念(limiting concepts) 」 時,我相信他的意思是﹕沒有不與特殊啟示摻雜的「純」自然啟示;也沒有不與自然啟示摻雜的「純」特殊啟示。(「界線觀念」 Limiting concept 是康德和他之後的哲學家所使用的術語。數學中的「無限」( infinity ) 是一個「界線觀念」limiting concept,因為,雖然我們能在計算中有意義地使用這個概念,世上卻沒有真正在數量上是「無限」的事物。界線觀念(Limiting concepts) 用在分析事物時非常有用,可是它們並非代表了甚麼真正存在的事物。關於范泰爾如何使用這觀念,請參看第13章「類比系統」 。﹞自然(啟示)必須在超自然(啟示)的光照中來理解;而超自然(特殊啟示)也必須以自然為背景去理解它。若少了彼此作為彼此的背景(處境, context),兩者都不可能起到「啟示」的作用。
When Van Til says in the above quotation that natural and supernatural revelation are “limiting concepts of one another,” I believe that he means that there is no purely natural revelation or purely supernatural revelation without admixture of the other. (“Limiting concept” is a term used by Immanuel Kant and later philosophers. Mathematical infinity is a limiting concept, because although we can use the concept meaningfully in calculations, there are no actually infinite quantities of objects in the world. Limiting concepts are useful for analytic purposes, but they do not literally represent something that exists. See chap. 13, “The Analogical System,” for more on Van Til’s use of this concept.) The natural must be understood in the light of the supernatural, and the supernatural must be understood against the “backdrop” of the natural. Apart from these contexts, they do not actually function as revelation.
I have elsewhere described this sort of view as “perspectivalism.” (In DKG, throughout.) That is, all human knowledge is simultaneous knowledge of self, world, and God. Knowledge of one area cannot be adequate without knowledge of the other two. One cannot know the self rightly without knowing God, and similarly with the other relationships. Therefore, “self-knowledge” is really a knowledge of all three areas – self, world, and God, with a focus or emphasis on the self. Self-knowledge in this case becomes a perspective on the entire triad.
Do Distinguish the Two: Do We Need Theology?
在之前那段引文的脈絡下,范泰爾的確說過,自然神學和超自然神學依然必須 「分辨清楚﹕這個分辨是不同『內容』的分辨。若能在這裡分辨清楚,就能幫助我們認清:罪進入世界之後,人透過自然神學與理性神學的方法,能怎樣認識上帝?甚麼是必須留給 『神學』 去處理的? 」 (IST, 74.)
Van Til does say in the context of the last quotation that natural and supernatural theology must nevertheless be “kept distinct.: The distinctness is a distinctness of content: “If we keep them distinct at this place, it will help us when we come to the question of what can, now that sin has entered the world, still be known of God by the process of natural and rational theology, and what must be reserved for theology proper.” (IST, 74.)
Here I believe Van Til is simply making the traditional distinction between natural theology as communicating God’s nature and wrath, and revealed theology, as communicating the gospel. Natural and special revelation, therefore, differ in content. But to understand and to apply each one properly, we need the other. Van Til’s perspectivalism must not be taken in a leveling way so that all God’s messages become identical. Rather, it calls us to recognize both the integrity of each revelation and the interdependence of all God’s revelations. For revelation is, after all, like creation, a manifestation of the divine Trinity.
SPECIAL REVELATION
特殊啟示掌管所有的知識
Special Revelation Rules Over All Knowledge
Van Til’s threefold perspectival scheme appears in a series of chapters devoted to the topic of general revelation. As we have seen, however, this scheme includes special revelation within its purview. “Revelation by God about nature, man, and God” is a category that certainly includes special, as well as general, revelation: indeed, all the categories require interpretation in the light of Scripture. So we have already seen some of what is most important in Van Til’s view of special revelation: that it must rule all other aspects of human knowledge.
Nevertheless, Van Til does go on to give more focused attention to special revelation, and particularly to Scripture. We must now give attention to that discussion.
特殊啟示的必須性﹕人的罪性
The Need for Special Revelation: Man’s Sin
The necessity of special revelation “does not lie in any defect in the general revelation that God gave to man when he created him.” (IST, 110.) General revelation was, and still is, fully adequate for its purpose. Rather, the need for special revelation is found in man’s sin (not, Van Til emphasizes, in his finitude.) The message of grace is not found in nature. In addition, special revelation is necessary to correct our sinful distortion of general revelation. (IST, 111-112.)
Special Revelation: God’s Words, Deeds, Presence
特殊啟示不僅包括聖靈默示的文字,還包括上帝啟示性的作為。范泰爾視《聖經》裏上帝的顯現、先知預言和神蹟為一個整體﹕上帝救贖性的臨在、救贖性的話語和救贖性的作為。(傅蘭姆﹕參見拙著《認識神的知識論》講述的三個範疇﹕準則性﹑處境性及存在性。)每一種啟示的方式 (mode) 都預設了另外兩種方式。上帝的話語解釋祂的作為;而上帝的話語和作為,則賦予祂的顯現(上帝住在人間)以重要意義。 (IST, 119.) 這種對救贖性作為的強調,使我們不至墮進 「假理性主義」之中。 (IST, 130) 我們的需要不僅僅是資料的缺乏;我們所需要的,是人性的改變。
Special revelation consists not only of inspired words, but also of revelatory deeds. Van Til sees an organic relation in Scripture between theophany, prophecy, and miracle: God’s saving presence, saving words, and saving deeds. (Cf. the categories “normative,” “situational,” and “existential in my DKG – John Fame.) Each mode of revelation presupposes the other two. God’s words interpret his deeds, and both “give significance to God’s dwelling with man (theophany).” (IST, 119.) The emphasis on saving deeds keep us from “false intellectualism;” (IST, 130) our need is not a mere lack of information, but a need for personal change.
「上帝的話語與祂的作為同工;上帝的作為與祂的話語同工。」 (IST, 131.) 透過這兩種形式,上帝親自來到我們中間,拯救我們脫離罪惡。在不了解所有三種啟示方式的情況下﹐我們不可能認識其中任何一種方式-這又是另一種視角性 (perspectival) 的關係。
“The words corroborate the deeds and the deeds corroborate the words.” (IST, 131.) And in the two, God himself comes to us to save us from our sin. We cannot know one form of revelation without knowing all of them – another “perspectival” relationship.
Idea of Scripture, Message of Scripture: Inseparable
Speaking of Kuyper’s and Bavinck’s views of Scripture, Van Til remarks, “How basic and how broad was their view! The idea of Scripture, they said, must never be separated from its message.” (JA, 8; cf. CTK, 31, 33, where Van Til speaks of the “interdependence of the idea of the fact and the content of Scripture.”) “Separation” is a tricky word in theology, and some have used this idea-message relationship to criticize orthodox views of Scripture. For example, the claim is sometimes made that because the message of Scripture deals with salvation, the idea of Scripture must limit inerrancy to matters of salvation narrowly defined, thus allowing for errors when Scripture speaks of other things. Van Til, however, comes to these questions with a different concept of both the idea and the message of Scripture. The message of Scripture, for Van Til, is a message of grace from a God who is absolutely sovereign and speaks with absolute authority. If Scripture is this Word, then it must convey his ultimate authority and therefore be inerrant in all matters. Van Til describes Warfield with approval as holding that
古典基督教「《聖經》無誤默示」的教義與「上帝主權」的教義有著密切的關係。上帝若不能在對人啟示自己時掌主權,祂就不可能在指揮人類-有理性靈魂的人-的時候掌主權。上帝若在「存有」的領域中掌主權,那麼祂當然也在知識的範圍裏掌主權。 (IW, 3.)
The classical doctrine of the infallible inspiration of Scripture was involved in the doctrine of divine sovereignty. God could not be sovereign in his disposition of rational human beings if he were not also sovereign in his revelation of himself to them. If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge. (IW, 3.)
We learn of this sovereign God from Scripture; this is part of its message. But when we learn of such a God, we realize that “such a God must identify himself. Such a God … identifies all the facts of the universe. In identifying all the facts of the universe he sets these facts in relation to one another.” (CK, 28. Cf. IW, 1.)
Thus, a word of God, giving his own authoritative promise of redemption, must be self-attesting. Scripture, as that Word, needs no corroboration from any source outside itself; and no such corroboration is possible, unless the other source is already subject to the interpretation and evaluation of Scripture. (Cf. Van Til’s argument in RP, 37.)
《聖經》若是自我見證的,那麼它必具有傳統的屬性﹕必需性、權威性、清晰性和足夠性。范泰爾對這些屬性的解釋如下﹕
If Scripture is self-attesting, then it bears the traditional attributes – necessity, authority, perspicuity, and sufficiency – which Van Til expounds as follows:
God inspired Scripture as his written Word, because sinful man, if left on his own, “would be sure to misinterpret” (IST, 133) the saving deeds of God. Thus, there was the necessity for Scripture, so that God’s saving message “(1) might remain through the ages, (2) might reach all mankind, (3) might be offered to men objectively, and (4) might have the testimony of its truthfulness within itself.” (IST, 134.)
Scripture also has authority, because, of its very nature, it must challenge man’s claim to autonomy. It must convey God’s claim to absolute authority – his lordship over man.
The perspicuity of Scripture means that there is no “necessity for human interpreters to intervene between Scripture and those to whom Scripture comes.” (IST, 135.) Teachers of the church may give us useful assistance in understanding Scripture, but Roman Catholic theology is wrong to claim that “no ordinary member of the Church may interpret Scripture for himself directly.” (IST, 135.) To deny the clarity of Scripture is to deny its authority, for if a human teaching authority is necessary for the proper use of Scripture, then that human authority becomes the ultimate authority in the church.
All these matters overlap and are involved in one another, and it is well to see that they do. The four attributes of Scripture are equally important because, if we did not have them all, we would have none. The whole matter centers about an absolutely true interpretation that came into a world full of false interpretation. (IST, 136.)
The four attributes, too, are “perspectives.”
The overall argument here is that if Scripture is the self-attesting Word of God, there must be “no admixture of human interpretation” standing between the believer and the revelation. (IST, 136.) It might be objected at this point that an “admixture of human interpretation” always does intervene in our study of Scripture, since, as Van Til recognizes, we must use our own senses and reason in that process. Here, Van Til would doubtless refer to his perspectival analysis of general and special revelation: in the work of Bible interpretation, our reason, senses, and methods must themselves be brought into conformity to Scripture. (For the issue of circularity which arises here, see chaps. 10 and 22.) The “admixture” to which Van Til objects, in my judgment, is not an admixture in which human reason is governed by Scripture, but one in which that reason asserts its own ultimacy and rebelliously distorts the truth.
那麼,就算是信徒在研讀《聖經》,不也同樣會有一些罪性的歪曲嗎?是的。不過,信徒研讀《聖經》的目標,是想要了解《聖經》本身的教導。即使我們是使用自己的能力來解釋《聖經》,《聖經》卻永遠站在我們之上,不斷向我們罪性的歪曲提出挑戰。《聖經》必須是上帝純粹、自證的話,本身毫無罪性的歪曲,才能對我們發出這樣的挑戰。
Is there not some sinful distortion even in the believer’s study of Scripture? Yes. But the goal of the believer’s study is to understand the teaching of the Word itself. Although we use our own faculties to interpret Scripture, it always stands over against us, challenging our sinful distortions. And to do that, Scripture itself must be God’s pure, self-attesting Word, itself free from sinful distortion.
Van Til discusses this issue in dealing with A.E. Taylor, whose objections to the orthodox view of Scripture amounts to this: “There can be no authority which is absolute, if the one who receives the message of authority is, in any way, constructive in the reception of it.” (IST, 139. I am not clear as to why the last three words are emphasized – John Frame.) This objection assumes, however, that the interpretive activity of the human mind is
something independent of the interpretive activity of the divine mind. And if one starts with such a false assumption it is but to be expected that one cannot think of the absolute authority of God over man unless man’s mental activity is brought to a complete standstill. (IST, 139.)
On a Christian basis, however, the human mind was not made to be independent of the divine. I would paraphrase: the human mind does its best job of interpreting when it denies its own autonomy and “thinks analogically.” If sin enters into the believer’s thought, it is sin that he and the Holy Spirit are overcoming.
《聖經》的原本THE AUTOGRAPHA
我將不會處理范泰爾對「羅馬天主教的聖經觀」和「假神秘主義」的回應,他的立場頗為傳統(IST, 140-145)。我也不會討論范氏有關「《聖經》是完全(逐字)默示而成」的論證(也很傳統)。 (IST, 148-158)
I will not deal with Van Til’s rather traditional responses to the views of Scripture of Roman Catholicism and “false mysticism,” (IST, 140-145) or with his scriptural argument, also traditional, for plenary inspiration. (IST, 148-158)
His discussion of the “autographa” is, however, of some interest to us. Traditional Reformed theology has argued that the infallibility of Scripture pertains strictly, not to every copy of Scripture, but to the autographs, the original manuscripts, which God directly inspired. Many have objected that if that is true, our present copies of Scripture are not infallible. And since the original manuscripts are lost, we have in fact no infallible text, and our position is no different from that of liberalism. Are we not, then, left with a Bible that is not infallible but only “reasonably reliable”?
To answer this objection, Van Til employs the illustration of a bridge covered somewhat by a flooding river:
In A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Van Til responds to the same issue by appealing to divine sovereignty:
There would be no reasonably reliable method of identifying the Word of God in human history unless human history itself is controlled by God. … It is impossible to attain the idea of such a God by speculation independently of Scripture. … Such a God must identify himself. … Such a view of God and human history is both presupposed by, and in turn presupposes, the idea of the infallible Bible. (CTK, 28; cf. IW, 44.)
The passage in A Christian Theory of Knowledge is suggestive, but somewhat obscure. The upshot of these two passages, however, is that unless the infallible revelation has been given somewhere in space and time, and thus is accessible in principle to human knowledge (e.g., by textual criticism), then we have no access to the pure Word of God. And without that, there can be no certainty about salvation, or, for that matter, about anything else. Indeed, without such a Word, we would know that the biblical God does not exist. For the biblical God is one who does address us authoritatively. That is the only way in which the Lord can address his servants.
Therefore, if there is no such Word, there is no God. And if there is no God, there is no such thing as “reasonable reliability.” Without God, all is chance, chaos.
If that God does exist, revealing himself by his infallible Word, then all meaning and intelligibility in the universe is due to him. And his Word, Scripture, is relevant to all meaning in the universe. This means, contrary to “limited inerrantists” and others, that the scope of Scripture is universal. It “speaks of everything.” Van Til explains:
We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work but it also tells us who God is and whence the universe has come. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the Word of God that you can separate its so-called religious and moral instruction from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe. (DF2, 8.)
The Bible “stands before us as the light in terms of which all the facts of the created universe must be interpreted.” (DF2, 107; cf. CA, 23-29.)
As I indicated at the beginning of this section, many theologians tried to show, based on the nature of Scripture’s message, that the scope of Scripture is limited to certain areas of narrowly religious concern. Van Til has done the church a great service here: he has rethought the nature of Scripture’s message and has concluded, rightly, that when that message is properly understood, it will require us to find in God’s Word a message of unlimited scope, together with ultimate authority.
因此范泰爾釋放了凱伯的偉大異象﹕將人生的一切範圍服在基督的統管之下。 (參林前10﹕31;林後10﹕5。)畢竟,《聖經》確實論及了心理學、邏輯、數學、歷史、科學、藝術、政治、經濟……等,而不是只講論狹義的神學課題。很不幸的是,許多凱伯的跟隨者認為,《聖經》的範圍相當狹窄,因此我們改革社會的希望,基本上必須忽略《聖經》的教導-雖然《聖經》能激勵我們朝著正確的方向前進。相反地,范泰爾卻揭開了《聖經》的偉大能力,不只使人們重生,還教導他們如何改變社會與文化。
Thus Van Til unleashes the great vision of Kuyper, to bring all areas of human life under the sway of Christ (see I Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 10:5). Scripture does, after all, talk about psychology, logic, mathematics, history, science, art, philosophy, politics, economics, etc., as well as the narrowly theological disciplines. Many of Kuyper’s followers have unfortunately argued that Scripture has a narrow scope and that our desire to reform society must therefore largely ignore the teachings of the Bible, although Scripture may motivate us in a useful direction. Van Til, on the contrary, opens up the great power of Scripture, not only to regenerate people, but also to instruct them for social and cultural change.
This does not mean that Van Til is a narrow Biblicist. We have seen that for Van Til, revelation is an organism, that special and general revelation must be taken together. Van Til, as we have seen, does not believe that the presence of human interpretation relativizes the authority of the Word of God. Rather, God calls us to apply our best gifts toward applying his Word to all matters, and he promises that such efforts, humbly subject to that very Word we seek to apply, will be fruitful.