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
Jim Cassidy and Camden Bucey discuss theological methodology in light of Calvin’s view of natural theology. As a starting point for the discussion, they turn
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
Van Til used the word “scholasticism” (or its other variations) as shorthand for Thomistic dualism (and with it the medieval synthesis of Christian and pagan
This post is a kind of follow-on from a previous post about “as-suchness.” In The New Synthesis Van Til writes: Paul does not discuss questions
There is still a great deal of confusion out there concerning the difference between orthodox Reformed theology and the theology of Karl Barth. Are they
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
Jim Cassidy and Camden Bucey discuss theological methodology in light of Calvin’s view of natural theology. As a starting point for the discussion, they turn
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
Van Til used the word “scholasticism” (or its other variations) as shorthand for Thomistic dualism (and with it the medieval synthesis of Christian and pagan
This post is a kind of follow-on from a previous post about “as-suchness.” In The New Synthesis Van Til writes: Paul does not discuss questions
There is still a great deal of confusion out there concerning the difference between orthodox Reformed theology and the theology of Karl Barth. Are they
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.
The Dutch Reformed thinker and poet Willem Bilderdijk recalls in a letter to a friend in 1822 what his former teacher once said: “When examining
A listener of Christ the Center raised a useful question about Bavinck, noting that he denies the speculative conception of “innate ideas” in Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2,
This the first installment of a quarterly series of interviews highlighting the Lord’s work in the lives and ministries of our Reformed Forum faculty. Up
In biblical teaching summarized by Reformed theology, the creator-creature distinction brings into view the absolute ontological difference between the Triune God and the creature. The
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 newsletter as they are published.
