Logical Problems with Textual Criticism as Related to Biblical Inerrancy

 

Logical Problems with Textual Criticism as Related to Biblical Inerrancy

 

The ongoing disputes between the reasoned eclecticism text critics and the Byzantine Majority text critics has led to something of a comeback of the defense of the traditional and confessional view that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus is the best representation of what the original autographs contained.  Some in the modern textual criticism camp, also known as reasoned eclecticism, have accused the confessional view supporters of being part of the King James Only controversy.  However, the confessionalists uphold only that the Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that the original Hebrew and Greek texts are the authentically preserved copies of what the original autographs contained:

 

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(a) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(b) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(c) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(d) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,(e) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(f) 

[Westminster Confession of Faith.  Chapter 1.  Of the Holy Scripture.  Paragraph VIII.]

 

The recently formed Reformation Bible Society is in agreement with the Trinitarian Bible Society on the doctrine of the preservation of the authentical text.  The apparent controversy also includes the fact that the Reformation Bible Society and the Trinitarian Bible Society both prefer the authorized King James translation of the biblical texts.  Furthermore, the RBS and the TBS both affirm the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Scrivener’s edition of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament as the authoritative biblical texts.  There are very few differences between the Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus and the Scrivener’s edition.  There are also a few minor differences between the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia edition of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Bomberg edition, which dates to the Reformation period.

However, I wish to discuss the more pressing issue of biblical inerrancy in regards to these disputes.  This problem also relates to the dispute about the archetypal knowledge of God, known only to Himself, and the ectypal knowledge of God as it is revealed to humanity.  Suffice it to say that biblical revelation or special revelation is in the ectypal realm of epistemology.  The dispute between the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark and the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til had to do with this issue, although Gordon Clark never directly addressed the archetypal/ectypal distinction.  Clark’s view was that the Bible is univocally the very words of God, while Van Til argued that the Bible is only analogically the inspired word of God.  I have written numerous articles on my blog on this topic, so I will not go into great detail here.  Clark’s major concern was that the theologians in the Van Til camp had unwittingly crossed over into the liberal views promoted by neo-orthodoxy and Barthianism.  Emil Brunner was also a controversial theologian of neo-orthodoxy, though he disagreed with Barth’s rejection of natural revelation.

A further bit of information about Dr. Gordon H. Clark is that he was one of the founders of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1949.  In more recent times some critics of the society have said that the requirement of a commitment to biblical inerrancy to join the ETS is not meaningful because there is no other doctrinal statement to affirm in order to become a member.  The official doctrinal basis is stated as,

“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”

[The Evangelical Theological Society.]

In fairness to Dr. Clark and the other founders, at the time of the establishment of the ETS, there were far less doctrinal differences between supporters of biblical inerrancy than what exists today.  Unfortunately, some modern members of the ETS society are less than orthodox by some accounts.  Moreover, a weakness of the Reformation Bible Society is that there is no mention of any requirement to affirm biblical inerrancy, since none of the required confessional statements mention inerrancy specifically.  The perceived advantage of limiting the ETS statement to biblical inerrancy and the trinity was perhaps misplaced.  However, the knife cuts both ways; The Reformation Bible Society should have some requirement for adherence to the fundamentals of the Evangelical faith in addition to the confessional requirements.  This is true because at the time of the Westminster Confession of Faith and other confessional statements plenary verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy were not the issues that they are today.  In short, the problem goes way beyond the dispute over the providential preservation of the original autographs in the extant apographs.  The inspiration and the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture are at stake as well.

The accusation of some opponents of the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Reformation Bible Society that the two societies are essentially KJV only advocates is misleading.  The reason is that the KJVO or King James Only movement affirms that the KJV is an inspired and inerrant translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek.  The RBS and the TBS societies do not make that assertion.  They affirm that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus authentically preserve the original autographs.  But even this distinction avoids a problem of all three major Evangelical positions.  The three major positions are:  1)  reasoned eclecticism;  2)  reasoned majority text reconstruction; and 3) the providentially preserved and authentical Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  The problem of all three positions is that if only the original autographs--which no one possesses today--are the inspired autographs, then it logically follows that nothing we have today is the exact reduplication of the original inspired and inerrant autographs, including the “authentical” text. 

Although the confession affirms that the authentical text has been kept pure in all ages, it does not show how that reduplicates the originally inspired autographs.  By all accounts, there are minor differences or variants even between the Bomberg Masoretic Text and the later editions based on the Leningrad Masoretic Text such as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.  Critics of the Textus Receptus have pointed out that there are several different editions dating back to the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514 and at least 5 editions of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus.  (See: Editions of the Textus Receptus.)   Additionally, there are variants between the many editions of the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.  (See:  Variants between the Textus Receptus and the KJV.  See also:  TR variants.)

The problem here is that if we are to affirm the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of the Bible, there are obviously spelling differences at a bare minimum, not counting the variations in wording.  The Bible obviously implies that there are no spelling errors in the text:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18 KJV)

There are fewer variants in the editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but variants do exist.  I do not have access to a Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.  However, in the textual apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia there is a textual variant that supports the King James translation of Psalm 22:16.  Liberal critics have often attacked the KJV as using the Septuagint translation of the verse to support the prophecy of the crucifixion.  However, the variant reads as a verb for pierced rather than the word for lion.  The difference is between a yod, which would make the word mean lion, and a waw, which would render the Hebrew word as a verb, meaning pierced or dug. 

(Ps. 22:17 WTT)  כִּ֥י סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֭רֵעִים  הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּ֜אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי׃

The apparatus for the BHS lists this variant from the second edition of Kennicott, which is from the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text:  כארוּ

Most of this evidence points to the fact that no one today has any original copy of the autographs.  Therefore, there must be a decision made as to the standard text of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles used for translation.  The Westminster Confession of Faith 1647 seems to indicate that that would be the first editions of the Masoretic Text available in that time and the editions of the Textus Receptus available to the Westminster divines of that period.  The variants in these editions are much fewer in number than either the reasoned eclecticism view of the modern textual critics or the Byzantine Majority approach of Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.  In short, the critics who say that the KJV utilized the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint or LXX to translate Psalm 22:16 are wrong.  The Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text shows clearly that the KJV translators used only the Masoretic Text for the translation of this verse.

Furthermore, I would conclude that everyone involved in all three major positions are evading the fact that they are starting with unproved starting points.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark called these axioms.  He once said that everyone is a fideist.  By that he meant that everyone has presuppositions or unproved starting points.  Some critics call this circular reasoning.  But if so, then everyone is guilty of circular reasoning at some point in their arguments.  Clark was simply being honest.  Also, Clark once asked the question that if the atheist or the liberal has unproved starting points, why criticize the Christian for starting with the Bible as the main axiom?

Most critics of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s apologetics fail to make a crucial distinction between his theological arguments and his apologetical arguments.  In some instances, Clark, utilizing his training in philosophy, uses a socratic method of argument.  In such instances, Clark liked to use the reductio ad absurdum approach.  This approach reduces the opponent’s objections to absurdity.  While Clark did not always build his own case to a point of undeniable proof, he was often successful at showing how the other side was blatantly contradictory.  On the confessional and fundamental doctrines and theology of the Christian faith as a system of propositional truth, Dr. Clark was without doubt extremely orthodox.  Clark, however, admitted that he sometimes made mistakes in logic.  Apologetics can get extremely detailed.  Clark liked to point out that there are many battle fronts in a war.  Not every individual can fight every battle front; so, there are limitations on what one person can do in one lifetime.  This does not even touch on the fact that many persons change their views on particular issues over time.  This was true of the church father, Augustine of Hippo, as well; his Retractions are evidence of this.

The short answer to all of this is that the Scriptures are self-authenticating.  In other words, it is a matter of faith to believe that what you are reading is God’s inspired, inerrant and infallible word.  The Westminster Confession of Faith says as much:

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;(a) and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(b)

Westminster Confession of Faith:  Chapter 1, paragraph 5.  Of the Holy Scripture.

Notice here that the testimony of the church moves us to this conclusion.  Also, we learn from reading the Bible that the doctrine is efficacious.  The style is majestic.  All of the parts of Scripture consent to a unity, a scope of the whole.  “Notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” 

Dr. Clark was once asked how the Christian knows that the Bible is the Word of God and not the Koran?  His answer was that the Christian has been born again and the Muslim has not been born again.  Can we prove any of this using evidentialism, empiricism, or unregenerate reasoning?  The answer is obviously no.

Herein lies another problem for the reasoned eclecticism utilized by Dr. James White, Dr. Daniel Wallace, and others.  The problem is that they are placing another authority above Scripture, namely the alleged “science” of textual criticism.  Is the Christian supposed to suspend his or her faith commitments in order to prove or disprove the portions of the Bible that critics question?  If so, then the Bible itself is always subject to question.  If there are one or two errors in the Bible, then the entire Bible is in question.

This raises another question:  which Bible translation is self-authenticating?  I for one do not trust the reasoned eclectic approach to Scripture.  I read mostly the New King James Version or the King James Version of the Bible.  That’s because the authorized King James Version has stood the test of time, despite some translation issues here and there.  Why would I trust a translation that has to constantly be revised according to an ever-changing science of textual criticism which never arrives at the truth?  Why presuppose that there are errors in the Bible?  A believer should instead presuppose that the Bible is God-breathed, without error, and infallible in every doctrinal point, especially the doctrine that God is the ultimate author of every single word of it.  Does the plowboy or the housewife need to read Greek and Hebrew or study textual criticism?  I doubt it.  Instead of questioning everything as James White and Dan Wallace does, why can’t we just presuppose that the confessional view established in Westminster Confession chapter 1 is true?  In that case, we need not consult modern translations to find out what the NKJV or the KJV and other translations based on the confessional view got wrong.  Presuppositionalism does not need to prove that the Bible is true.  Although technically speaking no translation is totally without error, we can trust that insofar as the KJV is faithful to the authentical texts in the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus it is the inspired and inerrant word of God for the reader.  The KJV is an acceptable translation for public preaching and teaching.

At some point the Christian must move on from evidentialism to a position of being convinced that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  Without the Bible there is no Christianity at all.

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Ps. 12:6-7 KJV)

In a future post I will examine the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and point out what I think are weaknesses or errors in that document.  There needs to be more clarification on the doctrines of preservation, inspiration, and the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

 

 

 

 

Divine Simplicity, Incomprehensibility, Thomistic Dualism and Biblical Inerrancy

". . . 'The supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.'  

"Unfortunately the visible churches that have descended from the Protestant Reformation, especially the larger and wealthier denominations, have to a considerable degree repudiated the Bible."

Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  pp. 24-25.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim. 3:16 KJV)

Recently, I was listening to several YouTube videos on the issue of divine simplicity.  It became apparent to me that the Thomistic doctrine has a problem that Dr. Gordon H. Clark called a dual view of truth.  Most of the advocates of the modernized doctrine of divine simplicity have over-emphasized the transcendance of God to the point that nothing can be known of God's archetypal knowledge whatsoever.  Divine simplicity's most basic assertion is that all that is in God's archetypal being is God himself.  The attributes of God are therefore only identifiable from below or from an ectypal understanding of God. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith does indeed insist that God is not a collection of parts or a composite of parts.  The problem, however, is when these same theologians say that God's mercy and God's wrath are the same thing.  God is love.  (1 John 4:7-8).  Is God's love really the same thing as God's justice and God's wrath?  I don't think so.  But does the doctrine of divine simplicity entail that distinctions cannot be made in God's being without His being a composite of parts?  Dr. Gordon H. Clark defined God as the system of propositions that God thinks.  Within the Godhead or divine essence there are three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  All three Persons are the same God.  If we take the divine simplicity model too far, that would imply that Cornelius Van Til's view of God as both one Person and Three Persons would not matter.  All that is God is God.  This would entail direct contradictions in the Godhead.

Although God is a simple Being, who cannot be divided into composite parts, does this mean that God cannot be defined?  If so, then we have a problem with Scripture, because it is from the propositions in the Bible that we know anything about God at all.  This raises another question.  Is God incomprehensible?  Before we can answer the question, the word "incomprehensible" must be defined.  Dr. Clark defined the word as immeasurable, not unknowable.  Typically, the neo-orthodox view has it that God is so totally transcendent that He cannot be known except through an existential encounter, not through a rational understanding of information in the Bible:

". . . Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and modernism substituted religious experience for the Word of God.  The neo-orthodox also deny the truth of the Bible and substitute something called an existential encounter.  They fail to tell us how this experience determines the number of the sacraments, the mode of baptism, the principles of church government, or even the doctrine of the Atonement. Without such information controversies of religion can be settled only by majority vote, that is, by the whims or ambitions of ecclesiatical politicians.  No wonder there is talk of church union with Rome.  Without information from God, men are left to their own devices."  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  1965.  (Trinity Foundation:  Unicoi, 2001).  P. 25. 

Frances Turretin did articulate a distinction between the archetypal and ectypal knowledge of God.  I cannot remember exactly what Gordon Clark said about this distinction, so that will have to wait for another blog post.  However, Clark and Cornelius Van Til had a serious disagreement over whether or not God's knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point.  Van Til said no, and Clark said yes.  In fact, Clark went further than that and insisted that the Bible is univocally the very words of God in a logical and propositional form.  Van Til, on the other hand, following Turretin and Aquinas, insisted that God's archetypal knowledge and our ectypal knowledge do not coincide at any single point.  Clark, utilizing the illustration of geometry, insisted that parallel lines continue into infinity and into eternity in both directions without ever intersecting at any single point.  Following this logic then, there could be no coincidence at any single point between God's knowledge and our knowledge whatsoever.  The implications of a Thomistic dualism, then, would be that the Bible is not really God-breathed or even the Word of God.  It could only be a human book based on human logic and a human existential encounter with God.  In other words, it would mean that only God knows any divine information, and this information is known only to God in His archetypal knowledge.

I have even heard Dr. James White say that only God knows what the original autographs say, and God knows this in His archetypal knowledge.  The problem here involves the doctrines of both divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy/infallibility.  If the Bible is merely a human book on the ectypal level, then it logically follows that it could contain errors.  The problem is even worse when we consider the issue of reasoned eclecticism in regards to the textual criticism of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Even Dr. Richard Mueller has not taken such a strong stance against any interaction between God's archetypal and God's ectypal knowledge:

The issue, here, is a direct reflection of the language of the Reformed prolegomena: the ultimate and therefore perfect archetypal theology is identical with the divine mind—all other theology is, at best, a reflection of this archetype, a form of ectypal theology. Ectypal theology in the human subject (in all systems of theology!) is not only finite and reflective but also limited by human sinfulness and by the mental capacities of the theologian.165 The human author of theology, thus, has little intrinsic authority. If theology is to be authoritative, its source (other than the mind of the theologian) must carry authority with it. That source cannot be the divine archetype, but it must stand in a more direct relation to that archetype than any utterly human effort: the doctrine of inspiration leads, therefore, in many of the orthodox systems, directly to the doctrine of the authority of Scripture.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy;  Volume 2: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Print.  Page 261.  [Emphasis is mine.]

The point here is that if the archetypal knowledge of God is known only to Him, how could ectypal knowledge be a reflection of what is totally unknowable?  Gordon H. Clark distinguished between God's intuitive knowledge and human discursive knowledge.  He also agreed with the proposition that the noetic effects of sin causes errors in logic and, most likely, in theology as well.  But is it really true that 2 + 2 = 4 is the same thing as God's love in God's archetypal knowledge?  How do you know? 

Now, as this relates to the issue of biblical inspiration and biblical inerrancy/infallibility, I would like to raise the problem of textual criticism, reasoned eclecticism, and presuppositional apologetics.  I will delve more into this issue in future posts.  However, for now I would like to ask a few questions.  If the original autographs are only a reflection of the archetypal knowledge of God and can only be known through ectypal reflection and condescension to the human level, and if we do not have the original autographs, does it not follow that there are at least two problems with the doctrine of biblical inspiration and biblical inerrancy?  First of  all, if we do not have the original autographs, we are left with either a reasoned eclectical reconstruction of the autographs by way of a fallible "science" of textual criticism, or we are left with an equally reasoned reconstruction of the autographs from the extant Byzantine majority texts.  Thus, both the critical eclecticism and the reasoned Byzantine text reconstruction are based on some form of textual criticism.  Both positions argue that the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament are flawed.  

So, that logically means that no manuscripts extant today are without error.  How then can a theoretical biblical inerrancy exist at all?  Logically, it must be as unknowable as God's archetypal knowledge.  In that case, Bart Ehrman's argument that the autographs cannot be reconstructed must be true.  James White has argued that the autographs are available in the critical apparatus of the eclectic editions of the Greek New Testament.  But does this not lead to a form of relativism where the informed reader of the critical editions of the Greek New Testament picks and chooses which variant is the original?  Absolute truth is unchanging, yet we have a constantly changing series of translations based on an ever-changing eclectic Greek New Testament.   And, as Maurice Robinson has noted, the reasoned eclectic approach often stitches together disparate fragments to produce a text that does not exist in any extant manuscript of any kind.  The options keep changing from one variant to the next in a constant flux of possibilities, which leads to relativism, not certainty.

But is there another option?  Gordon H. Clark proposed that Scripture is the axiom of Christianity.  Without the Bible there is no basis for Christianity at all.  But more about this in a future post.

Revisiting the Clark/Van Til Controversy, Part 3

"I hope to talk about Van Til before the semester is over, let me say this, my impression is, I could mention some differences between the two, but my impression is that in spite of the fact that Van Till denies he is an neo-orthodox apologete, I think he has been very deeply influenced by neo-orthodoxy, and unwittingly supports their position."  Dr. Gordon H. Clark

This is a continuing commentary on the Reformed Forum's attack on the theology, philosophy and apologetics of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark.   Parts 1 and 2 can be found by clicking here:  Part 1, Part 2.

4. From the conformity of the moral law with the eternal law of God. VI. Fourth, the moral law (which is the pattern of God’s image in man) ought to correspond with the eternal and archetypal law in God, since it is its copy and shadow (aposkimation), in which he has manifested his justice and holiness. Hence we cannot conform ourselves to the image of God (to the imitation of which Scripture so often exhorts us) except by regulating our lives in accordance with the precepts of this law. So when its observation is enjoined, the voice is frequently heard, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Now this law is immutable and perpetual. Therefore, the moral law (its ectype) must necessarily also be immutable. 

Turretin, Vol. 2, p. 19.  "Eleventh Topic:  The Law of God." 

Now the first thing I would like to point out that I forgot to mention in the last post is that Turretin does not say that there is a absolute divide between the archetypal law of God in God's mind and the ectypal law as revealed to man the creature in the Holy Scriptures.  Instead, Turretin compares the written Scriptures to the immutability of God as a simple and unchanging being.  He specifically  says that because the archetypal law of God is immutable that it logically follows that the special revelation in Scripture is also the immutable law of God.  By inference then we can conclude that all of the Bible is likewise the immutable and unchanging word of God.  (Psalm 119:89).  Scripture is the very words of God breathed out of His mouth.   (Matthew 4:4).  Not one jot or tittle will pass away from the Scriptures.  (Matthew 5:17).  

I would also like to point out that when Stephen Charnock says that God's understanding is incomprehensible he means without measure, not that we cannot understand anything that God knows at any single point.  (See: Part 2).  If so, then Turretin was wrong when he said that the archetypal law and the ectypal revelation of God's law are both equally immutable.  Charnock clearly meant that God is all knowing, not that we cannot know anything God knows at any single point whatsoever.  Does God know that the letter A stands for the first letter of the English alphabet and that the vowel can be either long or short?

Van Til and his students, on the other hand, say that there is no point of coincidence whatsoever between God's omniscient knowledge or archetypal knowledge and revealed or ectypal knowledge.  However much these men claim to be the "Reformed center" the fact of the matter is that neither Turretin nor Charnock said what these men are saying.  They would have agreed with Clark that special revelation is the word of God, not an analogy of the word of God.  In fact, both Charnock and Turretin predate the Barthian existentialist view that the Bible is experienced as a divine encounter and that the Bible is merely a human book because there is no point of coincidence between a totally transcendent God and a mere creature.

Another area where I take issue with Oliphint's misrepresentation of Clark is on the doctrine of the trinity.  (Minute mark 32:57 and following.

Camden Busey:  A related note, uh, this is germane to the discussion in the, uh, controversy between Clark and Van Til, we should say between the Clarkians and the Van Tilians in the church--it wasn't necessarily a one to one controversy.  It might be cast that way but it got more heated among the followers of the two men in the presbytery.  Um, but this issue is that of trinitarian theology.  Um, what are some of the differences here?  We oftentimes speak of person or hypostasis in our discussions of the trinity.  Uh, what were Clark's views of personality.  How did he go about defining a person and how might that differ, uh, from Cornelius Van Til?

Scott Oliphint:  Yeah, I think toward the end of his life you know he got more and more enamored with the kind of rational, uh, uh, process and, uh, wanted to fine, define persons as kind of a collection of propositions.  And because of that, as I say in my book, Reasons for Faith, uh, in his book on the incarnation he says that we need to just go ahead and admit that Christ is two persons.  Now I think you know you have to look at that and wince because in the history of 2,000 years there's a reason why neither Catholic nor Protestant would ever go there.  That that, that is the definition of heresy when you start to move into nestorianism or eutychianism or any of those kinds of christologicalisms you're in trouble.  Clark moved there.  Uh, you know he should've been more careful than that.  Uh, I think the lack of ... I shouldn't .... I think the emphasis on philosophy, the lack of historical understanding of theology at that point did him in. 

Uh,Van Til used the phrase as we all know now, uh, one person three persons, he used it very, very seldom.  It was not a mantra for him.  He wouldn't have gone to the mat for it.  He was making the point that Hodge and Bavinck make, which is that the one essence of God is not an abstract impersonal essence.  And as you said on your program and I think your listeners already know, Tipton has done the job of showing how this is consistent and how you can make this sort of claim.  Van Til was not trying to be crassly contradictory.  . . .

There is much more to be said here but I will cut to the chase.  The next couple of remarks Oliphint makes are in reference to a pamphlet written by the late Dr. John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation, Cornelius Van Til:  The Man and the Myth.   It should be remembered that Dr. Robbins' degrees were in economics, not philosophy or theology.  While he has some very good lectures on apologetics and logic on the Trinity Foundation website, Robbins was not a trained philosopher or theologian.  Dr. Clark, on the other hand, was both.  While it is true that Dr. Clark did not have a formal degree in theology, he grew up as the grandson and the son of two trained theologians and presbyterian ministers and had access to both their personal theological libraries.  Also, despite the disparaging remarks against Clark by Scott Oliphint, Clark was not ignorant.  He earned his doctorate in philosophy from an ivey league school, the University of Pennsylvania.  I can assure you that Clark had an encyclopedic knowledge of theology and church history.  In comparison to Oliphint, Clark's earned degrees were in the category of excellence.

Now in regards to Busey's remarks about personality and hypostasis, Dr. Clark pointed out that these terms are never fully defined by the church creeds or the writings of the church fathers, the scholastics or the Protestant Reformers.   And as Clark liked to point out, if you have not defined your terms you have not said anything meaningful.

It is true that Robbins accused Dr. Van Til of being an heretic.  I do not know if I will go that far.  Dr. Clark did not go that far.  I think Dr. Clark was more charitable but what he did say specifically was that saying that God is both one person and three persons is a direct contradiction and that it is not the orthodox doctrine of the trinity.  I think it is also relevant to point out that in every day conversation we often refer to God by the singular pronoun "He".  But most Christians understand that God is three persons and one God.

Clark's criticism of Van Til is in his lecture on "Irrationalism":

Clark:  Kierkegaard does not mean that the incarnation, and whatever other Christian doctrines he may have in mind, are surprising or psychologically incredible to heathen peasants and German philosophers. It is not as if the common sense of the sinful human race never expected atonement and resurrection. This is not what Kierkegaard means by paradox and absurdity. He means precisely that the doctrines are self-contradictory, therefore meaningless, therefore absurd.

This is why a certain amount of intellectual ability and activity must accompany faith. He (a Christian), he may very well have understanding, indeed he must have it, in order to believe against understanding. [Student Question: how does Van Till’s concept of paradox differ from Kierkegaard here?] I hope to talk about Van Till before the semester is over, let me say this, my impression is, I could mention some differences between the two, but my impression is that in spite of the fact that Van Til denies he is an neo-orthodox apologete, I think he has been very deeply influenced by neo-orthodoxy, and unwittingly supports their position. But let that do for the present and I’ll try to explain it further when we get to sometime…. Later on, maybe after the break, if there some parts of this you want to ask questions about, as to what they mean and so on, further explanation, I’ll be glad to do it. But, uh, I say I want to get over a few pages to make sure that the important parts are not missed.

At any rate, he defends the necessity of having an intellectual understanding, because you can’t believe absurdities unless you know what absurdities are. And hence you must be able to show that the Christian doctrines contradict each other. Now when you understand that the doctrines of Christianity contradict each other, and can’t possibly be true, then you must believe them – and that’s faith. And unless you deliberately believe absurdities, you have no faith.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  "Irrationalism".  Audio Lecture Transcript.  The Gordon H. Clark Foundation.  Pp. 4-5. 

And in another lecture Clark says that Van Til's assertion that God is one person and three persons is an outright contradiction:

Since Van Til’s theology is basically that of the Reformed Tradition, Frame will mainly discuss his distinctives. Incidentally, Van Til’s theology, I suppose you could say mainly or basically, that it is Reformed, but not all is quite the same. He has a view of the Trinity that no theologian that I know, no orthodox theologian I know of, has ever come up with at all. He holds that God is not only three persons in one substance to use that horrible Latin word that doesn’t mean anything. He holds that God is both three persons and one person. And he explicitly denounces the usual apologetic defending the doctrine of the Trinity which is that God is three in one sense, and one in another sense, and hence there is no contradiction because there are lots of things that are three in one sense and one in another. You can get all sorts of examples. The easiest one to think of is a business corporation that has three officers. President, Vice­ President, and Secretary Treasurer. And here the corporation is one corporation but three officers. And you can have one godhead and three persons. Or all sorts of combinations where you have three in one, but in different senses. And that is the standard orthodox position all the way back from Athanasius. Van Til denounces this. And says that the Trinity is both one person and three persons. And he calls this a paradox. Which is putting it mildly. 

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  "John Frame and Cornelius Van Til."  P. 2.   (See also:  Doug Douma.  "A List of Differences Between the Thought of Gordon H. Clark and Cornelius Van Til."  A Place for Thoughts blog.

It is odd that Oliphint goes out of his way to defend Van Til's denial of the orthodox view of the trinity and even points to Lane Tipton's defense of Van Til's apparent monarchian modalism or sabellian modalism.  I left the Assemblies of God after I became a Calvinist because of several reasons, including my rejection of Arminianism and the Word of Faith infiltration into classical Pentecostal circles.  But another major reason I left and became a Calvinist was that I discovered that the trinitarian scholars in the Society for Pentecostal Studies and their theological journal, Pneuma, advocate for a reconciliation between oneness Pentecostals and trinitarian Pentecostals.  The Church of God School of Theology, Cleveland, Tennessee also publishes a theological journal which also advocates for a reconciliation between trinitarian and unitarian Pentecostal denominations.  Their journal is called The Journal of Pentecostal Theology.

At any rate, Oliphint's accusation that Clark's view was that the essence of God is impersonal is patently false and ridiculous.  If Clark's view is that the essence of God is impersonal, why does Clark uphold the orthodox view that God is one God and three Persons?  The doctrine of perichoresis cited by Busey does not help his case since the doctrine of perichoresis nowhere says that God is one person.  The doctrine of perichoresis simply says that all three persons of the Godhead are fully divine and fully God.  It does not teach that each of the three persons is also the same person or even one person.  

Additionally, the idea that Clark was a nestorian is patently false because Clark pointed out that no one in church history or among the Reformers defined what a person is.  As Clark showed conclusively in The Incarnation, the Definition of Chalcedon said specifically that Jesus Christ the man had a genuine human soul and a human mind.  Even Thomas Aquinas said that Jesus must have had both a human mind and a divine mind.  The problem with the Definition of Chalcedon is that it was inconsistent.  If Jesus was a genuine human person and a genuine human soul, then he as a man could not have been omniscient.  Even the Van Tilians tacitly admit this when they say that Christ was ignorant in his human nature but omniscient in his divine nature.  But it is the Van Tilians who are saying that Christ is one Person who is ignorant in his human nature and omniscient his divine nature.  Is the human nature impersonal?

Another difficulty is that the Roman Catholics have gone way beyond denying the nestorian view.  They have made Mary the queen of heaven based on their doctrine that Mary literally gave birth to God.  Now if God was born 2,000 years ago, does that mean that God had a beginning?  Does it mean that one Person of the Trinity began to exist 2,000 years ago?   Obviously not.  Mary did not give birth to God.  She gave birth to a human baby who was also God by way of a spiritual union of God the eternal Logos.  So it is theologically more correct to say that Mary was the Christ bearer, not the God bearer or the "mother of God" as the papists teach.  Oliphint seems to make Catholic tradition and creeds equal to Scripture at this point.  Scripture nowhere teaches that Mary gave birth to God in any literal sense.  She gave birth to the Messiah, who was also God incarnate.  This is completely different from the papist doctrine that Mary is some exalted and immaculate human mother who is to be venerated and prayed to as the Mother of God.

I have written in other blog posts on the issue of the false teaching of kenosis and the subkenosis view of the incarnation so I will not go into that again here.  Basically, Clark's argument is that the Logos or second Person of the Godhead remains unchanged by the incarnation.  The Trinity does not divorce the eternal Son of God for 33.5 years during the incarnation on earth so that the Trinity is somehow temporarily dissolved.  Also, Apollinarianism is rejected because even the creeds say that the human soul of Christ is a reasonable soul that is not replaced by the Logos.  Nor is the human soul mixed with divinity so that it is now a monophysite Person that is mystically combined into a new hypostatic substance that is neither divine nor human but a mixture of the two.

It gets too tedious and lengthy to go into too much detail.  Suffice it to say that Clark's objection to much of the credal statement in the Definition of Chalcedon has to do with a lack of specific definitions.  I recommend that you carefully read Clark's book, The Trinity and his book, The Incarnation.  In the Trinity, Clark endorses both the Nicene and the Athanasian creeds.  In fact, the Athanasian creed is one of the most detailed definitions of the trinity ever produced.  The Athanasian creed makes distinctions between the three Persons but attributes all of the divine definitions to all three persons as one Lord and one God.  Clark does not deny that there is an apparent paradox here between the three Persons and one divine Being.  But he soundly denounces Van Til for saying that God is both one Person and at the same time three Persons.  That has never been the orthodox position and in that regard John Robbins was correct to call out Van Til for teaching heresy.

Another issue I would like to address is the reference that Scott and Jared Oliphint make to Greg Bahnsen's critique of Gordon H. Clark's apologetics where Bahnsen accuses Clark of making the Bible and Christianity merely a "theory" or a possibility.   I have answered this objection in a previous blog post as well:  Dr. Greg Bahnsen's Rejection of Logic.  Clark rejected empiricism because empiricism starts with human experience.  Clark rejects empiricism and Aquinas's assertion that humans are born with a blank slate and that knowledge comes from experience.  But why do babies learn so many languages while dogs and cats and apes know no languages?  (John 1:9).  Clark rejected common grace and empirical science because science is ever learning and never arrives at the truth.  Absolute truth can only come from God and by revelation.  Of course, we are born with the innate image of God and a rational intellect.  No other animal is the image of God.  Clark did not reject the operationalist view of science in that science can invent practical advances in technology.  But science can never provide an ought from what is.  Science can never lead to any absolute truth or any objective knowledge whatsoever.  For the Christian our worldview must be deduced from the special revelation of Holy Scripture, not from natural revelation or general revelation.  How does science prove that murdering babies in the womb or after their birth is morally wrong or that dropping the nuclear bomb is morally wrong?  How does science prove that you existed 5 years ago or even two minutes ago?

Revisiting the Clark/Van Til Controversy, Part 2

Psalm 145:3 (KJV 1900)

Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; And his greatness is unsearchable.

"Hence may be inferred the incomprehensibility of God. [Charnock here refers to the preceding exposition on the doctrine of omnipresence].  He that fills heaven and earth cannot be contained in anything;  he fills the understanding of men, the understandings of angels, but is comprehended by neither; it is a rashness to think to find out any bounds of God; there is no measuring of an infinite Being; if it were to be measured it were not infinite; but because it is infinite, it is not to be measured. . . . We know there is no number so great, but another may be added to it; but no man can put it into practice, without losing himself in a maze of figures.  What is the reason we comprehend not many, nay, most things in the world?  partly from the excellency of the object, and partly from the imperfection of our understandings.  How can we then comprehend God, who exceeds all, and is exceeded by none; contains all, and is contained by none; is above our understanding, as well as above our sense? as considered in himself infinite; as considered in comparison with our understandings, incomprehensible;  who can, with his eye, measure the breadth, length and depth of the sea, and at one cast, view every dimension of the heavens?" 

Stephen Charnock.  The Existence and Attributes of God.  Vol. 1.  1853. Reprint.  (Grand Rapids:  Baker Books, 1996).  Pp. 394-395.

The problem of analogy as defined by the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til is associated with a doctrine of God that emphasizes total transcendence rather than a doctrine of God where God can actually unveil Himself through special revelation.  In my last post I did not complete my thoughts because of a time constraint.  Be that as it may, I am going to continue my critique of the Reformed Forum video about the Clark/Van Til controversy as it was recounted by Dr. K. Scott Oliphint, who teaches systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadephia, Pennsylvania.

You will also remember that Dr. Oliphint was charged with teaching an unconfessional view of the doctrine of God when he asserted that God added ectypal, iconic knowledge to Himself in eternity prior to creation so that God could relate to creation after the ex nihilo creation of the universe in providential time.  (See:  Oliphint's Covenantal Properties and A Critical Review of God with Us).  Ironically, in this discussion Oliphint accuses Dr. Clark of disguising his true views and then "developing his views in a more extreme way . . . that was different from the initial discussion."  (Oliphint, minute mark 9:34-11:30).  But it is Oliphint who has over time developed a more extreme view of God's transcendence such that to recover any actual relationship between God and His creation Oliphint has to make changes to God's being by adding so-called "covenantal properties" to God's archetypal being such that God has two sources of being:  1) archetypal and 2) ectypal.  In other words, Oliphint is essentially proposing that there are two different beings of God, one archetypal and the other ectypal.

I did a computer search on Francis Turretin's Elenctic Theology (3 vols.) and found that the terms ectypal and archetypal occur in only a couple of brief sections:

VI. True theology is divided into: (1) infinite and uncreated, which is God’s essential knowledge of himself (Mt. 11:27) in which he alone is at the same time the object known (epistēton), the knowledge (epistēmōn), and the knower (epistēmē), and that which he decreed to reveal to us concerning himself which is commonly called archetypal; and (2) finite and created, which is the image and ectype (ektypon) of the infinite and archetypal (prōtotypou) (viz., the ideas which creatures possess concerning God and divine things, taking form from that supreme knowledge and communicated to intelligent creatures, either by hypostatical union with the soul of Christ [whence arises “the theology of union”]; or by beatific vision to the angels and saints who walk by sight, not by faith, which is called “the theology of vision”; or by revelation, which is made to travellers [viz., to those who have not yet reached the goal and is called “the theology of revelation”] or the stadium).

Francis Turretin.  Elenctic Theology.  "First Topic:  Theology".  Vol. 1., section 4.  First edition in French, 17th century. Translated by George Musgrave.  Edited by James T. Dennison, Jr.  3rd edition.  (Phillipsburg:  Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1997).  P. 39.

Another brief mention is in regard to God's moral law:

4. From the conformity of the moral law with the eternal law of God. VI. Fourth, the moral law (which is the pattern of God’s image in man) ought to correspond with the eternal and archetypal law in God, since it is its copy and shadow (aposkimation), in which he has manifested his justice and holiness. Hence we cannot conform ourselves to the image of God (to the imitation of which Scripture so often exhorts us) except by regulating our lives in accordance with the precepts of this law. So when its observation is enjoined, the voice is frequently heard, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Now this law is immutable and perpetual. Therefore the moral law (its ectype) must necessarily also be immutable.

Turretin, Vol. 2, p. 19.  "Eleventh Topic:  The Law of God." 

What astounds me is how self-avowed Evangelical Calvinists can take a few brief comments from Turretin and twist those comments into an almost open endorsement of outright neo-orthodoxy?  The Van Tilian school of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary now outright denies that the Bible is propositional revelation and instead advocates for the rejection of logic and the acceptance of a dialectical view of Scripture as an "analogical" revelation and proposes a revisionist view of the Westminster Confession of Faith as a system of analogical theology.  The premise behind this distinction is that the word of God only exists in the archetypal mind of God, which is totally unknowable to created humans even by divine revelation.  Man can know nothing God knows whatsoever.  The only way man can know revelation from God is by ectypal knowledge and analogical knowledge.  Even Scott Oliphint realizes the problems that this view causes so he is distancing himself from the term analogical and instead wants to refer to a difference between aseity and iconic revelation. 

A good example of this Barthian dialectical approach to the doctrine of divine revelation according to the students of Cornelius Van Til is Oliphint's claim that we cannot get to the word of God from a human perspective:

Jared Oliphint: (minute mark 38:20 and following)  ...  Clark ... had a specific view on logic and how it relates to . . . uh . . . knowing anything and you know this . . . it always . . . um . . . brings up the question of how is logic and God related to each other... um ... You know some people go so far as to say that God is confined by logic but that's o.k. because it's part of His character.  Yah, my general question is how are we supposed to think about logic . . . um . . . even in saying that I know that it's defined in a hundred different ways by a thousand different people ... um... like ... Can we compare Van Til and let's just say Reformed theology's approach to the role of logic and the use of logic in theology and philosophy even ... uh... compared to Clark.

Scott Oliphint:  Yah.  Yah.  I do some of this in Reasons for Faith and go through it and basically borrow it from the Scholastics and I borrow some of it from Turretin, whose excellent exposition is pretty good on that.  So again so whatever I am gonna say is not ... is not new in terms of Reformed theology.  It's basically what we've held historically but um...  Just to put it in the negative, I don't know what God's logic would be if He had logic because if logic is the science of inference God doesn't have any because He doesn't infer anything.  Well maybe it's just the making of distinctions.  Well, how does God make distinctions in eternity relative to exhaustive knowledge.  What does that look like? because we hold to God's simplicity, that is there aren't any parts in God.  So we ...uh... despite the fact that there are no parts in God we still understand God to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  ...

Camden Bucey:  With real distinctions in the Godhead.

Scott Oliphint:  Yah, but what does that look like in terms of our understanding.  And see, what the church has said is you can't get there from here.  Uh, that there is going to be a mystery.  Van Til mentions in ... uh... Intro to Systematic Theology ... He quotes from an article of Clark's in Evangelical Quarterly where Clark claims to have solved the problem of sovereignty...between God's sovereignty and human responsibility.  He solved this.  It's not a mystery.  Uh, I think when you begin to go down that road, you're getting yourself close to a pagan understanding of what logic is meant to do.  Because whenever you have the Creator and the creature meeting in any way there's going to be mystery.  So better to us Bavinck's line--all theology, all dogmatics is ultimately a mystery than to use Clark's line in the beginning was Logic and Logic was with God Logic was God.  [John 1:1].  I don't know what that would mean in the mind of God.  He doesn't infer anything and whatever distinctions are there are identical to Him. [Quote ends at 40:57

To be sure Gordon H. Clark did not reject the proposition that there are unresolved paradoxes in the Bible and in the Christian doctrinal system.  The difference between Clark and the Van Til school is that he advocated that there are solutions to paradoxes, which he defined as charley horses between the ears.  Van Til's followers adamantly deny logic and advocate for contradiction as their methodology. 

The answer to Scott Oliphint's assertion that God does infer anything is simple. God IS Logic.  If Oliphint accepts the doctrine of divine simplicity, as he claims he does,  then he ought to know that God not only knows all the inferences but He also knows all the propositions in the system since God is simple.  All that God knows is of His essence as who God is.  Unfortunately, Van Til's side rejects logic outright while affirming that logic is created by God and to be used as mere human logic.

Clark's rejection of Van Til's neo-orthodoxy is simple.  Two parallel lines never intersect at any single point.  So if ectypal knowledge and archetypal knowledge never intersect at any single point, it follows logically from the Van Tilian perspective that truth is two-fold and that human truth is not God's truth and God's truth is not human truth.  Van Til's view opens the door to saying that the Bible is not God's truth but only human truth.  And since human truth is always in flux, the Bible itself may just be another human book if, to quote Oliphint, "We cannot get there from here."

Dr. Clark, on the other hand, asserted that the Bible is the word of God, not just an analogical "interpretation" of God's archetypal knowledge.  The Bible is univocally the very words of God.  (2 Timothy 3:16).

See:  Part 1 and Part 3.

Reformed Forum: The Clark/Van Til Controversy: Revisiting the Fake Spin on Dr. Gordon H. Clark

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16 KJV)

Sect. IX.—THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, “Free-will” is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert “Free-will,” must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words.

Dr. Martin Luther.  The Bondage of the Will.  "The Sovereignty of God".  Section 9.

Part 1.  (See:  Part 2).

The February 26th, 2011 edition of the Reformed Forum podcast featured Dr. K. Scott Oliphint and his take on the controversy between Dr. Gordon H. Clark and his followers and Dr. Cornelius Van Til and his followers.  For the sake of brevity I will refer you to Doug Douma's excellent biography of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark for a historical timeline of the events and the ministers on each side of the conflict.  Doug's book is available here:  The Presbyterian Philosopher:  The Authorized Biography of Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  I am recommending this Amazon link because the Kindle edition is only $9.99.  For the paperback edition go to Trinity Foundation:  The Presbyterian Philospher.  The paperback edition is $22.50 plus shipping charges.

At any rate, the controversy continues today.  Ironically, in this video Dr. Oliphint will deny that Dr. Clark was charged with heresy in 1944 and affirm that Dr. Clark was guilty of Nestorianism at the end of his life.  Both the denial that Clark was charged with heresy in 1944 and the charge that he was guilty of the heresy of  Nestorianism before his death are false.  

In regards to Oliphint's spin that Clark was not charged with heresy to prevent his ordination (see Reformed Forum minute mark 7:12).  This is completely false.  If the complainants were not trying to prevent Clark's ordination on the basis of heresy why does the The Complaint charge Clark with unconfessional views in regards to the creature/Creator distinction and other areas such as the doctrine of the free offer?  Also, Oliphint spins Dr. Edmund Clowney's take on the controversy as if Clowney were an opponent of Clark's views.  The fact of the matter is that Clowney was a student of Clark when Clark taught at Wheaton College and it was Clark who influenced Clowney to attend Westminster Theological Seminary in the first place.  (Douma, Presbyterian Philosopher, p. 136).  Douma also notes that Clowney delivered the exoneration of Clark on the charges:

At the Thirteenth General Assembly of the OPC in May of 1946, the committee of five, with the exception of John Murray, brought their conclusions in Clark’s favor. More precisely, they concluded that the presbytery had not erred in ordaining Clark. Edmund Clowney presented the report which concluded that Clark’s view on the incomprehensibility of God did not substantially differ from the view of the complainants.

Douma, Doug J.. The Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark (p. 137). Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. 

What is disturbing in the anecdotal account of Oliphint's walk with Dr. Clowney is that Oliphint implies that Clowney agreed with the Van Til faction and that the controversy needed to take place to clarify the OPC's position, namely that Clark was out of accord with the Westminster Standards and the doctrine of incomprehensibility as stated in WCF 2:1.  Doug Douma's historical and biographical study shows that Oliphint essentially misrepresented both Clark's views and Clowney's response to Oliphint's query about the controversy.  Clowney did not think Clark was out of accord with the Westminster Standards and neither did the rest of the committee that cleared Clark's ordination.  In short, Oliphint basically constructs a huge prevarication about Clark's views throughout this video because of Oliphint's own biases against logic, propositional revelation, and the theological and propositional system of truth summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith.

One of the problems with Van Til's views is that Van Til used the term analogy with a different definition than even the scholastic theologians used the term.  For most theologians and philosophers the term analogy means that there is a metaphorical or symbolic relationship between one term and another.  For example, in the communion service the bread and wine are not the literal body and blood of Christ either in a physical sense or in a spiritual sense as in real presence.  Instead the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ in a theological and spiritual sense.  We call the bread the body of Christ by way of analogy because the bread represents the sacrifice of the physical body of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary.  The same is true of the blood of Christ shed at Calvary.  The wine is not literally the blood of Christ but is only the blood of Christ by way of analogy.  When communion elements are administered properly the person receiving the elements visibly and tangibly partakes of the bread and wine in order to receive by faith the benefits of our Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the elect.  Anyone who partakes unworthily, that is without true faith, does not actually partake of the benefits because without faith we cannot please God.  (Hebrews 11:6).

I will comment more on the Van Tilian view of analogy at a later point.  I have more to say about Oliphint's misrepresentation of Dr. Clark in this video.  But due to my limited time today I will end this first part.  Look for another post on this topic soon.