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 say “absolutely other.” By that
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 the believer may make contact
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 an idol. This is the
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 to Thiago M. Silva’s article,
The Westminster Larger Catechism defines justifying faith as
a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of
Saving faith is the instrument by which the whole person is united to the whole Christ in the unbreakable bond of the Holy Spirit. I am not my own, confesses the believer,
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 arising from my rereading
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 thought). In short Thomistic
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
We took to Facebook to broadcast a live Q&A session. With questions submitted through email and the live comment thread, we covered Lord’s Day observance, fasting and gluttony, and membership
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 say “absolutely other.” By that
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 the believer may make contact
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 an idol. This is the
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 to Thiago M. Silva’s article,
The Westminster Larger Catechism defines justifying faith as
a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of
Saving faith is the instrument by which the whole person is united to the whole Christ in the unbreakable bond of the Holy Spirit. I am not my own, confesses the believer,
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 arising from my rereading
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 thought). In short Thomistic
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
We took to Facebook to broadcast a live Q&A session. With questions submitted through email and the live comment thread, we covered Lord’s Day observance, fasting and gluttony, and membership
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.
Winter’s Death[1] by Geerhardus Vos
Here lies the Winter hated,
Goliath-like prostrated,
Whom David’s stone laid low.
Recovered from earth’s chillness,
Spring uses the first stillness
To put left-over illness
Beneath the thin-grown snow. His efforts
I was recently in Rome for a gathering of the Rome Scholars and Leaders Network, convened by the Reformanda Initiative, where I was invited to deliver two lectures. We met
