“In the first place, Christian theism maintains that the subject of knowledge owes its existence to God. Accordingly, all its interpretive powers are from God and must therefore be reinterpretive powers. In the second place when the subject of knowledge is to come into contact with the object of knowledge, the connection is possible only because God has laid it there. In other words, the subject-object relation has its validity via God. Theologically expressed, we say the that the validity of human knowledge in general rests upon the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. In addition to this, Christian theism maintains that since sin has come into the world, no subject of knowledge can really come into contact with any object of knowledge, in the sense of interpreting it properly, unless the Scripture give the required light and unless the regeneration of the Spirit give a new power of sight.
In opposition to this, that antitheist holds it to be self-evident that the subject of knowledge exists in its own right and can interpret truly without any reference to God. The ‘natural man’ claims to be able to interpret nature and history properly without the need of any reference to God. The ‘natural man’ claims to be able to interpret nature and history properly without the need of any reference to God, to Scripture, or to regeneration.
It follows from this clear-cut difference, a difference that goes to the bottom so that not a single ‘fact’ or ‘law’ is left for neutral territory, that the one group must naturally regard the other as being blind. Accordingly, it is when the subject-subject relation comes up, that the problem as to what one group thinks of the other group, becomes acute. The reason why Christians have not always been alive to this difficulty is that they have not always been consistent in drawing the distinction between the Christian theistic and the antitheistic system of epistemology clearly and fully. All to often they have allowed a hazy fringe to remain when it came to the question of whether unbelievers really know material facts aright. Christianity has all to often been interpreted in a narrowly soteriological [salvational] fashion.”
Cornelius Van Til
A Survey Of Christian Epistemology — pg. 184-185
For the life of me, I don’t know how R2Kt chaps can claim to be Van Tillian given this kind of quote. Given this kind of language does anybody believe that Van Til would have countenanced the use of Natural law for the common realm?
