The Essential Van Til — In the Beginning (Part 4)
As we continue to unpack Van Til’s review of Zerbe’s book we come to the second part of the review, which concerns Barth’s epistemology. Van
As we continue to unpack Van Til’s review of Zerbe’s book we come to the second part of the review, which concerns Barth’s epistemology. Van
When I first heard about Barth’s concept of the “wholly other” God, it sounded perfectly orthodox. Barth’s emphasis on the qualitative difference between God and
In the last post we began to consider Van Til’s first published criticism of Barth. It was set in the context of a book review.[1]
It is often assumed that The New Modernism (1946) is Van Til’s first published writing in which he evaluates Barth’s thought. Actually Van Til first
For Van Til no form of unbelief escapes the charge of rationalism. Irrationalism is only a disguised form of rationalism. But before getting to that,
Last week we talked about Barth’s “absolutely other” god. There we noted how Barth begins with an unknown and unknowable god. In other words, he
It is often said that Barth believed in a god who was “wholly other.” It’s an oft repeated phrase, but rarely understood. Van Til would
In chapter 3 of Christian Apologetics Van Til addresses the issue of the “point of contact” (Anknüpfungspunkt). That is to say, the point at which
Both Van Til and Barth rejected all forms of bare theism. That is, they denied a generic view of God. Both believed this “god” was
Now we begin to make a definite turn toward Barth in Van Til’s writing. Thus far this blog series has been a smattering of topics
As we continue to unpack Van Til’s review of Zerbe’s book we come to the second part of the review, which concerns Barth’s epistemology. Van
When I first heard about Barth’s concept of the “wholly other” God, it sounded perfectly orthodox. Barth’s emphasis on the qualitative difference between God and
In the last post we began to consider Van Til’s first published criticism of Barth. It was set in the context of a book review.[1]
It is often assumed that The New Modernism (1946) is Van Til’s first published writing in which he evaluates Barth’s thought. Actually Van Til first
For Van Til no form of unbelief escapes the charge of rationalism. Irrationalism is only a disguised form of rationalism. But before getting to that,
Last week we talked about Barth’s “absolutely other” god. There we noted how Barth begins with an unknown and unknowable god. In other words, he
It is often said that Barth believed in a god who was “wholly other.” It’s an oft repeated phrase, but rarely understood. Van Til would
In chapter 3 of Christian Apologetics Van Til addresses the issue of the “point of contact” (Anknüpfungspunkt). That is to say, the point at which
Both Van Til and Barth rejected all forms of bare theism. That is, they denied a generic view of God. Both believed this “god” was
Now we begin to make a definite turn toward Barth in Van Til’s writing. Thus far this blog series has been a smattering of topics
Receive notifications about forthcoming events, publications, and other updates. If you provide a US mailing address, we’ll send you a complimentary copy of our print newsletter when we publish the next issue.
Do Not Be True to Yourself: Countercultural Advice for the Rest of Your Life Kevin De Young Most speeches addressed to high school and college
Subscribe Now to Receive the Latest Issue of Our Magazine This article was published in the Spring 2023 issue of the Reformed Forum magazine. Subscribe
Christmas wonderfully brings into focus the first advent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into the world. Long ago, in the little town of
Having appreciated the work of Richard Muller, and his students, and having benefited immensely from their writings, I am still far from an expert in
Receive the latest news and information from us delivered to your email inbox. If you provide a U.S. mailing address when you signup, we’ll send you complimentary copies of our print magazine as they are published.