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
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
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
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
It is often assumed that Karl Barth’s thought is the antithesis of medieval scholasticism. It is true that Barth is exceedingly critical of Aquinas. But
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
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
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
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
It is often assumed that Karl Barth’s thought is the antithesis of medieval scholasticism. It is true that Barth is exceedingly critical of Aquinas. But
Receive notifications about forthcoming events, publications, and other updates. You may also subscribe to our print newsletter.
We are so encouraged that many of you have registered for our new educational platform, Reformed Academy. Just last week, we launched our third on-demand course, Introduction to
The father of Reformed biblical theology was also a lifelong poet. Vos published eight volumes of poetry brimming with some two hundred poems in total.
As the eternal king of his church, Christ governs us by his Word and Spirit, by his Candle and Comforter.
Chicken wings, hot sauces and… Reformed theology? Yes, please. In homage to the wonderfully quirky YouTube show, First We Feast’s Hot Ones, we toe the
Reformed Forum
115 Commerce Dr.
Suite E
Grayslake, IL 60030
+1 847.986.6140
mail@reformedforum.org
