Mr. Black, Mr. White, Mr. Grey

[JM]

I go back to this dialogue written by VanTil once or twice a year!

We have first the non-Christian, who worships the creature rather than the Creator. We shall call him Mr. Black. Mr. Black may be a very “decent” sort of man. By God’s common grace he may do much that is “good.” Even so he is, as long as he remains in his unconverted state, black in the sight of God.
On the other hand we have a representative of those who have, by the grace of God, become worshipers of the Creator-Redeemer, called Mr. White. Mr. White is far from what, judging him by his name, we should expect him to be. But he is washed in the blood of the Lamb. In Christ he is whiter than snow. Mr. White is the Reformed Christian.

But, strangely enough, there is a third party, an Arminian, called Mr. Grey. Of course, in Christ Mr. Grey is as white as is Mr. White. Mr. Grey thinks that Mr. White is too severe in his evaluation of Mr. Black. Mr. Black is not all that black. It is not pedagogically wise to require of Mr. Black that he make a complete about-face. Surely no such complete revolution is necessary in the field of science and in the field of philosophy. Many of Mr. Black’s followers have valiantly defended the existence of God against materialism, atheism, and positivism. Even in theology many of these disciples of Mr. Black have sprung to the defense of God when he was attacked by the God-is-dead theologians. Mr. Grey, therefore typifies the Aquinas-Butler method of defending Christianity.

Let us now note the difference between the way Mr. White and the way Mr. Grey approach the unbeliever, Mr. Black, with the gospel of Christ.

Let us say that Mr. Black has a toothache. Both Mr. White and Mr. Grey are dentists. Mr. White believes in a radical methodology. He believes that Mr. Black should have all the decayed matter removed from his tooth before the filling is put in. Mr. Grey is a very kind-hearted man. He does not want to hurt Mr. Black. Accordingly, he does not want to drill too deeply. He will, therefore, take only a part of the decayed matter out of the tooth and then fill it.

http://www.the-highway.com/defense_VanTil.html

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I love anything by Dr. Van Til, but I must confess, I am not a big fan of the type of writing where an author creates imaginary conversation with symbolic people, or representatives of different positions. But this piece is good, because it's by Van Til of course! lol Seriously though it is, and a number of concepts are communicated in this small piece, especially the inconsistency of a non-Reformed apologetic with Biblical truth, but it also demonstrates how Mr. White's apologetic and theology are harmoniously consistent and fused together, or like marriage partners. One might even say, apologetics is the handmaiden of theology, a necessary one while living in fleshly bodies and engaged in day to day spiritual warfare.

 

[JM]

Thought of this convo today…

I had a chance to talk about homeschooling with a co-worker. She objected because Christian parents were only exposing their children to Christianity. This lead to a 30 minute discussion about worldviews. I pointed out that she teachers her children what she believes is true which include a blend of nominal Roman Catholicism and secularism but she couldn’t give up on the idea that she/secularism is impartial while we “Christians” were limiting our children to our Christian beliefs.

It was a good convo. May God bless and encourage her to dig deep into her own beliefs.

Yours in the Lord,
jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Dr. Van Til was definitely pro-Christian education: https://presupp101.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/van-til-essays-on-christian-education.pdf Secular education is by and large founded on the lie that education, especially public education can be taught from a neutral position, from the notion of religious neutrality. For example, they say, what hath math to do with religion or god? We do not need the notion or concept of a deity to do math. Little do these people know (or would like to acknowledge) that mathematics depends on formal logic, and I think you know where I am going with this...so yeah there is no neutrality, no true escape from God, as much as we try.

 

[JM]

Is Arminianism "another Gospel?" VanTil probably didn't have that question in mind when he wrote the convo linked in the op but it's difficult not to apply it to Arminianism. Arminian thinking has produced a half Gospel, a half Christian worldview and one should consider this when reading the link above.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Vollbracht]

"but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you."

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. " "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth."

http://www.covenanter.org/HBinning/binninglove.html

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Always liked Van Til, though I have to agree with Apologetic_Warrior that I do not particularly enjoy invented conversations.

I'll be praying for your secular co-worker.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Brother JM, Van Til really helped to break me free from the philosophy of free will, from Arminian concepts of it. The underlying assumption or presupposition behind the Arminian concept of free will is that before conversion people have an autonomously and therefore "free" (from what to what?) will. What the Arminian does not want to wrestle with, or admit, with said assumption is, what maketh them to differ from their neighbor when it came to "choosing Christ"? Together Dr. Van Til and Bahnsen made a Theonomist out of me (however weak, poor, and wretched I am when it comes to application), however not to the extent Dr. Bahnsen taught, I still have many grey areas in my thinking especially when it comes to application of laws in the Old Testament, things I am not sure or certain about, areas where I am ignorant, and then so many things the Scriptures do not directly address, or where indirect addresses leave room for interpretation. Here is an example: is it a sin to spend too much time at a computer? How much time is too much? Another example: is it a sin to drive over the speed limit? The application from Scripture requires much deduction or extrapolation, and perhaps from generalizations and the answers to them may vary, or not be concrete. Anyway getting off the rabbit trail, Theonomy is harmonious with Monergistic Regeneration, while Arminian concepts of autonomy are at odds with even synergism, and there again, why did God help them and not their neighbor, or why was He able to draw them and not their neighbor? All I did in the question is assume their own concept and challenge it within their own realm of thinking. Ehp 2:8-10 is clear.

Eph 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." NKJV

So our answer to the question is GOD, He maketh us to differ, and He alone.

 

[Vollbracht]

Neither Mr. Black, Mr. Grey nor Mr. White approaches anyone.

"The thing testified and witnessed unto is the ground
work of all a Christian's hope and consolation, that Jesus Christ
is the eternal Son of God and Saviour of the world—one, able to
save to the uttermost all that put their trust in him, so that every
soul that finds itself lost, and not able to subsist, nor abide the
judgment of God, may repose their confidence in him, and lay
the weight of their eternal welfare upon his death and sufferings,
with assurance to find rest and peace in him to their souls. He
is such an one as faith may triumph in him over the world, and
all things beside. A believer may triumph in his victory, and in
the faith of his victory, over hell and death and the grave may
overcome personally, 'For this is the victory that overcometh the
world, even our faith,' ver. 4. And how could a soul conquer by
faith, if he in whom it believes were not 'declared to be the Son of
God with power?' There is nothing so mean and weakly as faith
in itself. It is a poor despicable thing of itself, and that it sees, and
that it acknowledges. Yea, faith is a very act of its self denial. It
is a renouncing of all help without and within itself, save only
that which is laid on Christ Jesus. Therefore it were the most
unsuitable mean of prevailing and the most insufficient weapon
for gaining the victory, if the object of it were not the strong God
the Lord Almighty, from whom it derives and borrows all its
power and virtue, either to pacify the conscience, or to expiate
sin or to overcome the world.

O consider, Christians, where the
foundation of your hope is situated! It is in the divine power of
our Saviour. If he who declared so much love and good will to
sinners, by becoming so low, and suffering so much, have also
all power in heaven and earth, if he be not only man near us,
to make for us boldness of access, but God near God to prevail
effectually with God then certainly he is 'a sure foundation laid
in Zion, elect and precious.' He is an immovable Rock of Ages,
whosoever trusts their soul to him shall not be ashamed. I am
sure that many of you consider not this, that Jesus Christ, who
was in due time born of the virgin Mary and died for sinners, is
the eternal Son of God equal to his Father in all glory and power."

~ H. Binning

 

[Vollbracht]

"Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

Please, forgive me for being presumptuous.

 

[Vollbracht]

Lord Jesus, you are the Christ, the only Way to Salvation, please forgive me. There is nothing I can do, since, as you said, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit." Therefore, all I will do is to say, "To you alone, O LORD, to you alone, and not to us, must glory be given because of your constant love and faithfulness." Amen.

 

[Vollbracht]

God is no respecter of persons.

There is a repentance and then there is Repentance. All sin is an offense to God, and I am a sinner.
I ask forgiveness for disgracing Christ and His Church by my hypocrisy.

I can only cling to the cross and trust in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[GRACE WINS EVERYTIME!]

I go back to this dialogue written by VanTil once or twice a year!

We have first the non-Christian, who worships the creature rather than the Creator. We shall call him Mr. Black. Mr. Black may be a very “decent” sort of man. By God’s common grace he may do much that is “good.” Even so he is, as long as he remains in his unconverted state, black in the sight of God.
On the other hand we have a representative of those who have, by the grace of God, become worshipers of the Creator-Redeemer, called Mr. White. Mr. White is far from what, judging him by his name, we should expect him to be. But he is washed in the blood of the Lamb. In Christ he is whiter than snow. Mr. White is the Reformed Christian.

But, strangely enough, there is a third party, an Arminian, called Mr. Grey. Of course, in Christ Mr. Grey is as white as is Mr. White. Mr. Grey thinks that Mr. White is too severe in his evaluation of Mr. Black. Mr. Black is not all that black. It is not pedagogically wise to require of Mr. Black that he make a complete about-face. Surely no such complete revolution is necessary in the field of science and in the field of philosophy. Many of Mr. Black’s followers have valiantly defended the existence of God against materialism, atheism, and positivism. Even in theology many of these disciples of Mr. Black have sprung to the defense of God when he was attacked by the God-is-dead theologians. Mr. Grey, therefore typifies the Aquinas-Butler method of defending Christianity.

Let us now note the difference between the way Mr. White and the way Mr. Grey approach the unbeliever, Mr. Black, with the gospel of Christ.

Let us say that Mr. Black has a toothache. Both Mr. White and Mr. Grey are dentists. Mr. White believes in a radical methodology. He believes that Mr. Black should have all the decayed matter removed from his tooth before the filling is put in. Mr. Grey is a very kind-hearted man. He does not want to hurt Mr. Black. Accordingly, he does not want to drill too deeply. He will, therefore, take only a part of the decayed matter out of the tooth and then fill it.

A Defense of Reformed (biblical) Presuppositional Apologetics by Cornelius VanTil

Please check out this comprehensive book on GRACE:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Revolu...d=1470142527&sr=8-2&keywords=jesus+revolution

 

[JM]

Together Dr. Van Til and Bahnsen made a Theonomist out of me (however weak, poor, and wretched I am when it comes to application), however not to the extent Dr. Bahnsen taught, I still have many grey areas in my thinking especially when it comes to application of laws in the Old Testament, things I am not sure or certain about, areas where I am ignorant, and then so many things the Scriptures do not directly address, or where indirect addresses leave room for interpretation.

I'm kinda leaning toward Theonomy. It is consistent with all of scripture...I find being a "Baptist" not to be all that consistent with Theonomy though...that's a problem. Baptists tend to be individualistic and it begins with credobaptism.

Theonomy resonates with me, like McDurmon said, "don't limit the Gospel."

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'm kinda leaning toward Theonomy. It is consistent with all of scripture...I find being a "Baptist" not to be all that consistent with Theonomy though...that's a problem. Baptists tend to be individualistic and it begins with credobaptism.

Theonomy resonates with me, like McDurmon said, "don't limit the Gospel."

IMHO, Van Til and Bahnsen are the go to sources for learning about Theonomy, what is meant by it, what all it entails, and so on. If I could, I would seriously consider renaming my blog to Covenental Apologetics 101. Without diving into deeper waters, I am thinking about relationships between the Covenant of Grace/Christ as representative of and the Covenant of Works/Adam as representative of, and the Trinity as head of both, and how and where the concepts of theonomy and autonomy come into play. It's a bit much to take in atm.

Lately, I have mostly been listening to Calvinist Baptist Jeff Durbin and enjoying the amazing work God is doing through his ministry. I greatly admire the work being done at Apologia Ministries, and the amazing teaching. I really cannot say enough good things about Apologia Ministires, just kinda leaves me in awe.

 

[JM]

I listen to Jeff Durbin as well.