I find it fascinating that no less a Reformed theologian than John Calvin may not have fallen as neatly into the mould Van Til offered.  Book I, chapter 5 of The Institutes of the Christian Religion dovetails, as far as I can make out, really well with the position espoused by the Catholic Catechism...

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

Compare that to Calvin:

Since the perfection of blessedness consists in the knowledge of God (cf. John 17:3), he has been pleased, in order that none might be excluded from the means of obtaining felicity, not only to deposit in our minds that seed of religion of which we have already spoken, but so to manifest his perfections in the whole structure of the universe, and daily place himself in our view, that we cannot open our eyes without being compelled to behold him. His essence, indeed, is incomprehensible, utterly transcending all human thought; but on each of his works his glory is engraven in characters so bright, so distinct, and so illustrious, that none, however dull and illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse...wherever you turn your eyes, there is no portion of the world, however minute, that does not exhibit at least some sparks of beauty; while it is impossible to contemplate the vast and beautiful fabric as it extends around, without being overwhelmed by the immense weight of glory.

He gets even more "Romish" in the next paragraph:

In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the heavens and the earth present us with innumerable proofs not only those more recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural sciences, are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them. It is true, indeed, that those who are more or less intimately acquainted with those liberal studies are thereby assisted and enabled to obtain a deeper insight into the secret workings of divine wisdom. No man, however, though he be ignorant of these, is incapacitated for discerning such proofs of creative wisdom as may well cause him to break forth in admiration of the Creator. To investigate the motions of the heavenly bodies, to determine their positions, measure their distances, and ascertain their properties, demands skill, and a more careful examination; and where these are so employed, as the Providence of God is thereby more fully unfolded, so it is reasonable to suppose that the mind takes a loftier flight, and obtains brighter views of his glory. Still, none who have the use of their eyes can be ignorant of the divine skill manifested so conspicuously in the endless variety, yet distinct and well ordered array, of the heavenly host; and, therefore, it is plain that the Lord has furnished every man with abundant proofs of his wisdom. The same is true in regard to the structure of the human frame. To determine the connection of its parts, its symmetry and beauty, with the skill of a Galen, (Lib. De Usu Partium,) requires singular acuteness; and yet all men acknowledge that the human body bears on its face such proofs of ingenious contrivance as are sufficient to proclaim the admirable wisdom of its Maker.

The Catechism's second proof..

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material",9 can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".10

Guess what Calvin's next paragraph says?

3. Man as the loftiest proof of divine wisdom

Hence certain of the philosophers have not improperly called man a microcosm, (miniature world,) as being a rare specimen of divine power, wisdom, and goodness, and containing within himself wonders sufficient to occupy our minds, if we are willing so to employ them. Paul, accordingly, after reminding the Athenians that they "might feel after God and find him," immediately adds, that "he is not far from every one of us," (Acts 17: 27;) every man having within himself undoubted evidence of the heavenly grace by which he lives, and moves, and has his being. But if, in order to apprehend God, it is unnecessary to go farther than ourselves, what excuse can there be for the sloth of any man who will not take the trouble of descending into himself that he may find Him? For the same reason, too, David, after briefly celebrating the wonderful name and glory of God, as everywhere displayed, immediately exclaims, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" and again, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength," (Psalm 8: 2, 4.) Thus he declares not only that the human race are a bright mirror of the Creator's works, but that infants hanging on their mothers' breasts have tongues eloquent enough to proclaim his glory without the aid of other orators. Accordingly, he hesitates not to bring them forward as fully instructed to refute the madness of those who, from devilish pride, would fain extinguish the name of God. Hence, too, the passage which Paul quotes from Aratus, "We are his offspring," (Acts 17: 28,) the excellent gifts with which he has endued us attesting that he is our Father. In the same way also, from natural instinct, and, as it were, at the dictation of experience, heathen poets called him the father of men. No one, indeed, will voluntarily and willingly devote himself to the service of God unless he has previously tasted his paternal love, and been thereby allured to love and reverence Him.

Furthermore, in chapter 3 ("THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD HAS BEEN NATURALLY IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN MIND") Calvin makes a fascinating point:

That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service...Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature, - these certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of reverence to God.

The Catechism closes this section thusly:

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

Calvin devotes so much time to this that I won't bog down this comment trying to quote him, but I will share one excellent quotation that captures this concept perfectly, in my opinion:

For as the aged, or those whose sight is defective, when any books however fair, is set before them, though they perceive that there is something written are scarcely able to make out two consecutive words, but, when aided by glasses, begin to read distinctly, so Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till then, lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows us the true God clearly.

*Perfect* explanation, in my opinion.  I also find it fascinating that the only time Calvin disputes Thomas Aquinas is on his interpretation of the doctrine of predestination; and possibly in his discussion of free will; he never challenges his Five Ways or his general methodology, whereas Van Tillians practically get sick at the mention of them.

In Christ, and for the gospel of the kingdom,
Brett

http://www.amazon.com/Judaism-Discovered-Anti-Biblical-Self-Worship-Superstition/dp/0970378459

I'll ask you a question, allowing you to do what the bible says and give an answer for your faith. What reason have you for thinking that Jesus Christ was an actual person?

@distractedbyzombies - 

Why should I answer this question? What interest do you have in my demonstrating that the historical Christ did in fact exist? Why should I, under this post, add to what many theologians have masterfully defended? Have you looked for relevant material written by Christians? Who did you read? A lot of questions, but none of value for me.

I fear this to be another Xanga member on a hobby-horse crusade.

Question: If one were to demonstrate that Christ was a historical figure having actually existed, what would you do? Would you immediately become a Catholic? Would you seek to defend the Christian religion? Or would you find another excuse for your folly? I predict making another excuse for disobedience...

Yes, I would immediately join the Catholic Church. What you personally believe is of no interest to me. My interest is that if you had a good reason, I would listen. My other interest is that you're influencing someone I care about.

Anyway, you should answer because the bible tells you so. I'm asking YOU for a reason to believe Christ was an historical figure. If you could do so, I would change my mind and be saved. The only accounts I've heard so far are from Josephus and they've all been discredited. Most Christians don't even think they're authentic.

However, I meant it to be a friendly question. If my asking upsets you, I'll be going.

On a different note, I've debated with you in the past and I thought some of my dealings could have conceivably damaged you or your family. I doubt you would remember, but I'm feeling you out to make sure none of those wrong ideas took hold.

All the best,
The Chupa

Btw, feel free to point me to the specific works of the countless masterful theologians if that's easier for you.

Or not. I can't demand an answer from you.

@distractedbyzombies - 

The Chupra. I remember you from Theocentric Forums. All is well. There is no offense harbored by me.

Now, concerning your question. I do hope you make good on your promise. It is for what I believe to be the well-being of your soul that I would answer your question pertaining to the historical evidence of Christ's existence. Let us deal with but a few.

Let's look first at any creeds that appear to have been formulated prior to the writings of the New Testament. Some scholars point to "The Lord has risen indeed" (Lk. 12:34) and the Consecration passage of I Corinthians 11:23-25 as being pre-NT having both credal and liturgical value. Due to the dates of these letters, as well as others, it would certainly lend to the idea that there was a following of this man and his ideas prior to the advent of NT literature.

You mention Josephus. I grant that it appears that at least one of the references was tampered with. But to assume that all were tampered with would be rather unfortunate.

You also have Tacitus. He is known for having disclosed Nero's blaming the Christians for the fires of Rome. He described this Christ figure as having been “put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

Roman historian Suetonius and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion also give evidence of his having been an actual historical figure with a following known as "Christians."

Still, let us not leave aside a number of relevant points.

First, there was plenty of time for the claims of the apostles and eye-witnesses to be refuted. Certainly there were those who opposed Christianity! Why don't we see mounds of material calling these bewitched people to the floor?

Second, if the claims of the apostles had been radically outlandish and contrary to factual evidence, eye-witnesses would have (presumably) come forward. Yet even the heretical works of the second century wouldn't be so daring.

Finally, at least for the purposes of this comment, even the Gospel narratives relied on older sources. These narratives relied upon those close to Christ, including his mother. Surely this would add fuel to the skeptics fire if all of this was mythology and swindling.

In sum, to deny the historical validity of his existence is a fool's errand. If one wished to question the miraculous nature of his existence (conception, birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.), then they may have more wiggle-room, but not the mere historical validity of his existence.

I hope you make good on your side of the bargain.

I could do one of two things here - or both.

The first thing I could do is contest the sources as well as your conclusions as to what they prove. What you've basically shown me is that the study of history shows that there were people known as Christians. It doesn't tell me much about them or what they believed. There is far more historical proof that the early Christians were gnostics. The existence of gnostic christians is not historical proof for the existence of Jesus Christ. Of course there were creeds and gospels that proceeded the New Testament. The New Testament came rather late in the game as the Literalists in Rome continued to try to silence their much more successful competition. The weight of evidence suggests that Literalist Christianity was the rule, Literalists were the laughable exceptions.

That the NT testifies to Jesus Christ isn't very helpful. By the time they were written, any possible eye-witneses were long dead! How could they step forward to contest events that happened several lifetimes before the NT?

To claim that any of these things is substantial proof of the existence of Christ as an actual person in Palestine is unreasonable. We are told of the existence of a religion. I already believe religion exists.

Of course there is ample proof that people denied Christ 'in the flesh'. The NT itself responds to the assertion!

Now the second way to respond is for me to point out that I have given you an impossible task. Even if all the sources were verifiable, we wouldn't know anymore than we would if they were not. It is NOT POSSIBLE to definitively demonstrate the historical existence of a long-dead person. Not without DNA, and not even then, because you wouldn't know to whom it belonged.

It would be charitable to call the 'evidence' you present so far as scant.

@distractedbyzombies - 

I point out secular historians who reference not only the existence of a cult identifying itself as Christian, but that this cult followed a man who was known to have existed. You blew by that without blinking an eye.

Your question was with the historical evidence for the man Jesus, not so much with what the early Church believed. We could go down that rabbit trail on another day. But suffice it to say that if you wish to make the claim, as you did, that Gnostics ruled the day, then you have a heavy burden of proof to carry.

The gospels came late in the game? How strange! You have the Gospels and the epistles referenced by Christian writers in the late first century and early second century. Not only were they referenced, but they were referenced as writings that had been around for some time, having circulated throughout large segments of the world and kept intact. Even Revelation, the last of the texts, is arguably dated before AD 70. Kenneth Gentry has dedicated an entire book to the issue and it is very convincing.

If people referenced the writings of Paul, Peter, the Gospels, or any other NT text before the turn of the first century, then your lack of eye-witness account falls on it's face. One is left wondering when you would have the NT books composed. And if later than traditionally accepted, one is at a loss as to how so many early writers referenced those non-existent texts! Truly remarkable.

Do you even understand what "in the flesh" meant? It would be an elementary mistake to presume that this means "in reality" or "in history."

I disagree that this is an impossible task. If you were consistent with your presumptions, you wouldn't only be stuck denying the reliability of historical accounts, but you would have to toss induction out the window. I could encourage you to jump headfirst into a fire. You could tell me of people who did that and were burned. You could even tell me of how science explains why you would get burned. But these are all premised on experimentation, reliability of the senses, reliability of other eye-witnesses, etc. And who know? I mean, this is a "different" fire. Give it a shot.

The same could be said about driving towards a semi-truck or jumping off a building. Anything that relies upon experience, trustworthiness of the senses, historical observations, and eye-witness accounts are off limits.

On a side note, why would you willingly and knowingly waste my time if you believe that this question is impossible to answer? An attempt to flaunt your new-found hobby horse? Shame.

Can I please have names and references? 'They exist' won't do. Who said what and when?

I can only trust that those possessing a modicum of reasoning ability can tell there isn't any in your response. I'm not wasting your time, you are.

My, my. I introduce a simple premise and all I get in response is that if I can't have absolute certainty about the existence of ancient things that I can't empirically observe or test, I am fated to throw myself into a pot of boiling water or to try to fly off a building by flapping my arms.

Boy, I can get used to that 'reply to' thing. That's what comes from being an ancient historical figure.

@distractedbyzombies - 

Already gave you references. I listed off a handful of names. Still, why even ask? Your presuppose that such a task is a worthless venture! You want name and references for what purposes? To retort that we cannot rely upon them because of your nonsensical concept of history? Goodness.

Those with a modicum of reasoning ability are relying upon non-empirical data and a number of factors that you apparently throw to the wind. This is rather tragic. What you fail to realize is the overall ramifications of your philosophical pessimism in regards to history. Do you not see that it is conditioned on a number of assumptions that, if consistently applied, would lead to the most absurd ideas, not to mention dangerous actions? If you cannot, then you may wish to reevaluate your ruling assumptions, or at least come up with a reason for your apparently gross hypocrisy regarding your application of said principles.

I am wasting my time with what? With you? There is a good case that could be made for that.

@Paleocrat_etc - 

Well, yes, you are. You're wasting my time, too, but I don't mind.

I'm well aware of the debating tactic of being completely incomprehensible until your opponent gives up. I've encountered it before. But we're not debating, because you're trying to prove something and I'm not. If you feel you've got nothing to prove, well then good for you. I can't prove anything, because I've got nothing to prove. And you can't disprove me, because I've got nothing to prove. You're wasting your time because you can't prove what you would like to.

As for references, you told me that they claimed to know of people who believed Jesus was real. That gives me evidence for the life of Christ. Give me records of dividing loaves and fish, turning water into wine, healing of thousands and thousands. Give me some record of the life of Jesus. Don't just tell me he must've existed because everyone thinks so

@distractedbyzombies - 

doesn't give me evidence...

@distractedbyzombies - 

A few things are quite evident:

1. This is your hobby horse.

2. You do not recognize the impact your view of history has on other matters.

3. You dislike the fact that you have a burden of proof in this matter.

4. You don't hesitate to move goal posts.

As for your last remark, the challenge was no more than demonstrating that Jesus, as a man, was in fact a historical person. There was no mention of miracles. There was no mention of his being the God-man. The issue was nothing more and nothing less than the historical nature of his existence. You moved the goal posts.

I am curious, though, as to why you would move the goal posts. If I cannot prove that he existed as a man (an outrageous claim based on a rather pathetic philosophy of history), then who in their right mind think I should waste my time attempting to prove that this man was extraordinary, both in being and in deed?

There is something I wish to say here. You claim that one cannot prove that someone actually existed, especially so long ago. Yet you ask for evidence from historians? You talk about how certain passages in Josephus have been discredited, but you never hesitate to accept the notion that Josephus actually existed. You claim that the majority of Christians in the first century were Gnostic. How do you know they existed? If one wishes to say that the more diverse the historians, the more credible the actual existence, then they are still stuck having to prove that the historians actually existed. Folly all around!

@Paleocrat_etc - 

Nonsense. Obviously I was not asking you to prove that there was any man named Jesus. I asked you to show me proof of the biblical Jesus, the miracle worker, the prophet, the crucified, the son of Mary and Joseph. I can find you a hundred Jesus's in my city alone. Obviously I want THE Jesus. The goalposts are the same.

You don't realize how your view of reality impacts other matters.

Laws of nature aren't absolute. Fire isn't always hot. Consider Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. If you believe only in what we see, hear, feel, and touch, the trappings of this reality, you'd better convert. The great hope of Christianity rests on it.

The burden of proof cannot be on me. I can't win the argument. Arguments are concepts and you can't win concepts.

Okay, that last bit is slightly off. You can't win an argument, but that's why the burden of proof isn't on me. It's not on me because I can't prove that someone didn't exist. That doesn't mean that they did. I would think the burden of proof stands with the institution that demands our obedience and allegiance, asks us to judge, accuse, and sometimes kill, based on ancient documents.

@distractedbyzombies - 

Nonsense? Obviously? Well, it wasn't obvious to me. What was obvious to me was that you wished to know if the man Christianity is named after existed. You did not ask about the nature of his being or the supernatural aspects of his many actions. Next time, be more specific.

Oh, I am fully aware of how my view of reality impacts others. Unfortunately, for the sake of this discussion (a rabbit trail I regrettably entered into) the issue is primarily concerned with a philosophy of history and all that entails.

You have asked for proof. Your prejudice against proof derived from the letters contained in or around the apostles has become as apparent as it is arbitrary. The idea that a historical piece of literature from someone who called himself a Christian would make him more prejudice than were it to come from someone who was indifferent (if there is such a thing) is rather absurd. It would be as one not taking the evidence of my wife's testimony that I exist because she is married to me. Bizarre is an understatement here.

And why insist on diverse array of historians? Why insist on any historians at all? Each source would then have to be accompanied with a host of diverse testimonies concerning their existence and trustworthiness. The problem is that the same goes for each and every one of those giving testimony! On and on we go, who ever existed, nobody knows!

Who ever said the laws of nature are absolute? The issue was not with the laws of nature as it is with the trustworthiness of past experiences in giving reason to presume that the future will be the same. A can runs into a semi-truck, not good. Well, at least it wasn't in that isolated event. Ignoring whether or not we can prove with any degree of probability, much less certainty, that such an event took place, the issue is whether or not such a historical event bears, or should bear, any weight whatsoever in determining how we choose to drive. Your view of history, if consistent, would place you in a tough bind... or in a dangerous accident.

What I still find amazing is the fact that you borrow intellectual capital from others, most of whom no longer live! Your use of language, concepts, reason, notions of logic, argumentation (which is what you are engaged in) didn't just pop up out of nowhere. These things were developed over time by people. Once again, most of these people are now dead. Why would you, given your philosophy of history, hold to any laws of logic? Why would you insist others do the same? If you were consistent, which you cannot be, then you would flee from such historical conventions.

Yes, you also have the burden of proof. The reason is not so much because you are making an assertion (though you certainly are making a rather extraordinary one), but because we are discussing the issue below the surface: your philosophy of history. These are derived from your view of reality, being, knowledge, etc. This most certainly spread the burden thick, and on every shoulder equally.

Interestingly enough, and I will end here, you talk about the Church killing. Let us consider the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch Trials. These are merely examples. Why I bring them up is that they involve people, historical people. These are historical events! Why don't you apply your skeptical principle here? And if you prefer to reference those more modern or even current, then some goon will have all the right to play your foolish game 50 years from now, denying the very thing you know with certainty to have happened. Irony.

I'll congratulate you on a honed talent for bluster.

I guess you're right. There should be no standards for corroborating history. We should take the past at face value. Every semi-historical claim rooted in the past must necessarily be treated as true. In a thousand years time, Superman will be the new Messiah, based on the testimony of DC Comics. Hallelujah!

@distractedbyzombies - 

Who said there should be no standard for corroborating history? Certainly not I! My contention was that if you wished to be in any way consistent, you would have to apply the same standard you apply to the historical Jesus to any and all historical persons. It is your philosophy of history that places you in a swamp of skepticism, whether you like it or not.

A. You want historical evidence that Jesus existed.

B. You don't accept evidence written by people who claimed to have known him or to have been eye-witnesses to his life. You do this for two reasons:

1. The documents were supposedly written much later than commonly accepted.
2. They were written by people who were biased.

PROBLEMS:

1. Non-canonical writers referenced these writings well before the dates you presume the writings to have been penned.
2. Using bias as a standard by which to exclude historical claims would lead to absurdity.

C. You wish to see a diverse array of historians and documents, each in harmony.

PROBLEM:

1. Each of these historians would, if you were consistent, need to have the same standards applied to them. Do they have a diverse array of non-biased historians verifying their existence? Were they eye-witnesses? The questions could go on an on, as I have already demonstrated above.

In the end, your philosophy of history is absurd. It leads, if consistent, to a skepticism that cannot be remedied. The answer for this skepticism isn't a blind optimism. This would be equally absurd. There is a golden mean here.

My advice: Repent and make good on your promises...

btw- It took less than 20 years from Christ's death for the Empire to have been rocked by those followers known as Christians. There was no wait, especially a wait that lasted 1,000 years!

I agree with what you've written above. Proving to me that Jesus existed is a great difficulty. You've done an admirable job pointing out that my standards are very high. You've certainly convinced me that I can never be convinced based upon my rigorous standards. Still, I've mostly seen allusions to evidence here, but I suppose you weren't willing to waste a lot of time trying to prove something to the likes of me.

I'll continue to do my own independent study, both through the internet and books like The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. I think I'll order that one today.