Am just listening to this episode from months ago, and I got to the part where Dr Oliphint makes the assertion about folks (like RC) following “Thomas” causing a “glitch” in their apologetics. As someone who’d not heard that before, and is only early in his seminary career, I had to dig around to learn that he meant Aquinas, and later was saying “Thomist”. I leave this for others who may have the same question and could come here looking for the help.

I also tried to find anything (on the web) addressing the specific concern of Aquinas vs Van Til. I found a couple of things: hi-level, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics, and in-depth, http://epistole.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/an-apparent-apologetic-method-in-aquinas-a-critique-of-certain-van-tilianisms/. I don’t think the latter supports Oliphint’s stand, and further as I don’t understand the issues, I can’t rate the value or perspective of either resource, so others devoted to the issue may want to point to other/better resources which explain the issue being discussed. Hope that’s helpful.

Thank you for the response. I do have the express surprise with your response a bit however. I went to the seminary with the most theonomist left in the world and they all had no place for a robust Biblical Theology. Don’t you think it’s interesting that all the Amillenialists are biblical-theologically driven? And, I would have to stress that they do not accurately emphasize the DISCONTINUITY in Covenant Theology. The very fact that they think that the civil law, given to Israel for that particular period in redemptive history, is still binding and should be implemented in the governments of the world proves my point. Even the Westminster Assembly men understood this when they said that the “sundry judicial laws given to Israel as a “body politic” were abolished…with the state of that people.” I could have said that theonomy was not Confessional, but I chose to say it was not biblical-theological enough.

And, by the way, I have read more theonomic works than I wished. Thanks.

“Theonomists are not inclined to Biblical Theology because it explains the continuity and DISCONTINUITY of the administration of the covenant of grace. They simply want continuity.”

This is a gross misrepresentation of both Bahnsen and theonomists, in general. If you had read a single work by Bahnsen on the subject you could not honestly make this statement. Theonomist are very ready to articulate the discontinuity of the Covenants, they simply do not think that it is warrented to abandon God’s requirement’s for civil governments. You should not spend your time misrepresenting others.

-Zac-

It would seem that if Van Til was greatly influenced by Vos that the entire theonomic understanding of the civil law would collapse.

Thanks again!

There are some postmillenial, theonomic strands in Bahsen’s Van Til, but by and large it is a good work. I would just watch out for the statements he makes in it about the church being responsible for the world’s darkness. I remember reading in there something to the intent that we are to blame if the world is still in darkness. In one sense this is true. We need to be telling people about Christ. But this can be taken in a postmill, theonomic way. God has promised to Christianize the world, therefore, if the world is not Christianized it is because we have failed to spread the Gospel and implement the civil law given to Israel into our government. I have a feeling Bahnsen had the second idea in mind. Otherwise it is a good book.

As far as VanTil is concerned, there is a lot of confusion about his view of theonomy. You will hear some people say, “Van Til hand picked Bahnsen to be his replacement.” They will also usually point to a sentence in Christian Theistic Ethics where Van Til says, “You’re either Theonomist or you are Autonomous.” Of course Van Til did not mean it in the way that proponents of the Theonomy movement take it, because there was no such thing as a theonomic movement. He simply meant–you either follow God’s law or you are a law unto yourself. Now, this poses the problem, I think,of explaining how it was that Van Til himself was not a theonomist. If there is no natural law (in the sense in which Roman Catholics and broad evangelicals use the term) then there is only God’s law. If there is only God’s law then what Law should we implement into societies? The answer seems pretty obvious, until you consider two factors in Van Til.

The first was his redemptive historical bent. Van Til was a huge BT guy since he was biblical, Dutch and worked closely with Vos. Theonomists are not inclined to Biblical Theology because it explains the continuity and DISCONTINUITY of the administration of the covenant of grace. They simply want continuity.

The other factor in Van Til that needs to be stressed is his emphasis on the Imago Dei and common grace. I can;t speak for him personally, but I have a hunch that Van Til would explain the ethics of politics in light of the biblical doctrine of common grace. Governments are to punish evil and reward good. How can this happen in a non-Christian state? Well, how has it happened throughout the history of the world. How is it that ungodly governments have punished evil for the last two thousand years? It is because the lawe is written on the hearts of all men, and by God’s common grace they acknowledge some of the things that they should be punishing. Should they be governed by God’s moral law? Sure, but I do not believe, and I do not think that Van Til believed that it was the role of the church to be telling the government to implement the moral law. It is a view of the purpose and work of the church in the world that holds the answer to the question of theonomy. In Muether’s new bio of Van Til he mentions that Van Til did not really produce any writings that incorporated his work into the sphere of art. I think this is true in regard to politics. I had a theonomic friend in seminary who once told me he thought Van Til was a closet theonomist. I don’t know if that is supposed to be a compliment or not, but it shows that at least one theonomist acknowledged that Van Til was not a “theonomist” in the sense of the movement.

Dr. Van Til and my dad were good friends. My dad told me that Dr. Van Til did not understand why the theonomists were doing what they were doing with his work. I guess that is a pretty straightforward answer to your question.

Hope this helps.

I had a quick question for you guys. I am not well-read in Van Til but have heard from some people that Van Til saw theonomists like Greg Bahnsen as perverting his work.

I see you have the specific book listed in your bibliography by Bahnsen. I was curious if this would still be helpful in reading and understanding Van Til and if you know anything else about this controversy regarding Bahnsen’s understanding of Van Til.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!