The Essential Van Til – In the Beginning (Part 2)
James J. Cassidy
October 30, 2017
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]
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
In his writings, Van Til used what has now become a defunct moniker to describe an early 20th century theological movement surrounding Karl Barth and
Today we speak with Austin Reed about Karl Barth’s theology of election. Austin is a student at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and walks us through a critical
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
In his writings, Van Til used what has now become a defunct moniker to describe an early 20th century theological movement surrounding Karl Barth and
Today we speak with Austin Reed about Karl Barth’s theology of election. Austin is a student at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and walks us through a critical
Receive notifications about forthcoming events, publications, and other updates. You may also subscribe to our print newsletter.
Camden Bucey introduced Lamentations, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah to the women’s bible study at Bethel OPC in Wheaton, Illinois. In that lesson, he detailed the basic
Faculty member and regular contributor on Christ the Center, Glen Clary recent spoke to our friends at Presbycast on worship and the second commandment. It
On behalf of Reformed Forum, I am pleased to announce that our Board of Directors has appointed Dr. Lane G. Tipton as Fellow of Biblical
Alan D. Strange, Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards. Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books,
Reformed Forum
115 Commerce Dr.
Suite E
Grayslake, IL 60030
+1 847.986.6140
mail@reformedforum.org