Great, what address should I send it too?
Mike

Joel, great question. I am working on that question, as we speak.

I would appreciate that Michael, thanks!

I am truly thankful for Reformed Forum’s commitment to confessional Reformed theology and for endorsing Van Til’s approach to apologetics, which I believe is most consistent with the system of theology that it professes to hold. I had recently read Paul Helseth’s book on “Right Reason and the Princeton Mind: An Unorthodox Proposal” that seeks to demonstrate that the Presbyterian members of the faculty in the 19th and early 20th century, such as Hodge and Warfield, did not in fact compromise in their commitments to the Reformed faith via the acceptance of Scottish Common Sense Realism uncritically. If memory serves me right (apologies I do not have the book within reach at the moment), Helseth pointed out that the use of right reason was not entirely an epistemological issue, but rather it contains an ethical/moral aspect as well. In relation to this, Helseth drew the distinction between speculative and spiritual knowledge, which he believed were employed by the Princetonians. As such, his thesis seeks to be “unorthodox” in that it goes against much of historiography concerning the Princetonians’ commitment to neutral reasoning, which would also suggest that Van Til was a tad overreaching in his evaluation of their epistemological commitments. How would you respond to Helseth’s proposal with regards to the Princetonian use of right reason? Your response will be much appreciated. Thanks.

In Christ,
Joel

I came across this statement years ago when in seminary, about 2005. I wrote a directed study paper on this very question. If you are interested, I could send it to you. Let me know what you think.
Blessings,
Michael