No Brute History

The idea of the modern man that history is a collection of facts in some chronological order, is becoming less and less appealing to scholars and critics. For the most part we as conservative reformed Christians can be glad for this shift, but I fear that it not all roses. Anytime a non believer starts agreeing with you its always time to check yourself - and this is no exception.

The apologetic world was I think significantly changed for the better when Van Til refined the idea of world view and transcendental/presuppositional argumentation. No brute fact - taght us that there is not one think in our thinking that is not interpreted through the grid of our world view and that is pretty potent stuff when your opponents world views are so blatantly inconsistent and borrowing from the Christian WV. What happens though when someone gets a hold of this concept and applies it to History? Can we say that there is no uninterpreted history?

There are advantages to such a position, and if we are consistent with our apologetic we must affirm this position at least on some levels. But I think a caution should be used. We can come dangerously close to relativism, and I believe flirt quite aggressively with the neo-orthodox position if we grab to tightly to this position. We must affirm that having an interpreted history in the Bible is not the same thing as having a false or mythical history. Sure the events are interpreted - but they are always interpreted around events that God preforms and, fortunately for us they are all interpreted by the Holy Spirit. So when the NT writers quote the OT and they don't "get it right" so to speak, we need not flee to fanciful "thats common place for the 2nd temple folk" talk - but rather boldly proclaim "the Lord rebuke you, for it is he who speaks, he who interprets"!