Comments on: Reformed Apologetics

By: Jeff Downs

Jeff Downs — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 13:20:52 +0000

Sam Waldron had written a review of Dr. Fesko’s book. Here is part 4 (other parts can be accessed through this link):
https://cbtseminary.org/j-v-feskos-reforming-apologetics-retrieving-the-classical-reformed-approach-to-defending-the-faith-a-critical-review-4-of-4

By: Patrick Brink

Patrick Brink — Thu, 06 Jun 2019 01:27:35 +0000

In reply to Benjamin Glaser. I would also be interested in a podcast like that!

By: Benjamin Glaser

Benjamin Glaser — Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:00:05 +0000

Given the new opportunities that might be upcoming from Reformed Forum would there be interest in doing a podcast covering “Defense of the Faith” and Van Til the way Dr. Tipton has done with the Vos Group.

Interested parties (me 😉 ) would be consumers of such a product.

By: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey — Mon, 03 Jun 2019 17:34:13 +0000

In reply to Michael Head.

Sure, here it is: https://www.opc.org/OS/html/V6/4d.html

By: Graham Dugas

Graham Dugas — Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:57:11 +0000

I was going to write the same thing as CM in the first comment. I always appreciate collegiality and being gracious so I look forward to the next few shows about Fesko’s book. In particular I request that Jeff Waddington go into more detail as to why Dr. Fesko omitted the many things brought to his attention citing sections that CVT wrote directly refuting the position that Fesko is hell-bent on characterizing CVT with/by. What is going on here? This is the same tactic that sloppy folks use when they want to paint presuppositionalism as fideism. Just omit a few pertinent factors and, voila! You arrive at the predetermined conclusion you wish. Is there a predetermined conclusion that is driving Fesko’s thinking? I’m sure there must be a more charitable explanation than that. Otherwise it doesn’t say much for Fesko’s character, his intellectual honesty or his scholarly rigor. So please, Jeff, come to the rescue. The best I can think now is simply that Dr. Fesko is out of his depth and cannot grasp the things he is discussing and asserting authoritatively and that is not much better.

By: Michael Head

Michael Head — Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:15:48 +0000

In reply to Michael Head.

Found it:

https://www.opc.org/OS/html/V6/4d.html

By: Michael Head

Michael Head — Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:26:16 +0000

Can you provide the link to the van Til letter you quote in the podcast (I believe you said it was on the OPC website)? Thanks.

By: Bridger Bond

Bridger Bond — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 23:00:53 +0000

In reply to Jeff Downs. Thank you.

By: Jeff Downs

Jeff Downs — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 21:11:50 +0000

In reply to Bridger Bond.

Van Til’s article is located here: https://thirdmill.org/magazine/hof/ST12006/Nature%20And%20Scripture%20by%20Van%20Til.pdf

By: Bridger Bond

Bridger Bond — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 10:32:45 +0000

In this episode the host mentioned an article that Van Til wrote concerning natural revelation/ theology. My question is, how do I get my hands on that article? Has it been published or are there any links to it?

By: Meine Veldman

Meine Veldman — Fri, 31 May 2019 23:23:50 +0000

Fesko is right, but that does not make Van Til wrong. They are swimming in somewhat different waters, that is, Fesko in the waters of 17th century (protestant scholasticism), and Van Til is harking all the way back to Calvin and the Reformation itself. If one can read Dutch, this is the book to read to understand this, I believe, Frans Breukelman, ‘Bijbelse Theologie IV/I. De structuur van de heilige leer in the theologie van Calvijn (Uitgeverij Kok Kampen, 2003). To try to put Van Til into a protestant scholastic jacket, as you do in this discussion, does neither a service to Van Til, nor to Fesko.

By: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey — Fri, 31 May 2019 16:01:30 +0000

In reply to Matt Doyle. Thanks for posting this. I'm sure many other listeners would like to have that reference as well.

By: Jeff Downs

Jeff Downs — Fri, 31 May 2019 15:46:45 +0000

Dr. Fesko, in his book does not address Van Til’s article, “Nature and Scripture” (as you stated in the program) There is also Bill Dennison’s article, “A Reassessment of Natural and Special Revelation” in In Defense of the Eschaton (Wipf & Stock). There is also Robert Morey’s book, The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise? John Frame says, “This is a devastating critique of natural theology.” I’m also surprised that Fesko doesn’t cite Jeffrey K. Jue’s article, “Theologia Naturalis: A Reformed Tradition” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics (P&R). There is also John Frames little work: Nature’s Case for God: A Brief Biblical Argument (Lexham Press) that Fesko doesn’t cite.

By: Matt Doyle

Matt Doyle — Fri, 31 May 2019 15:14:55 +0000

In reply to Matt Doyle. I found them! In the Fourth Edition, they are found on page 190.

By: Matt Doyle

Matt Doyle — Fri, 31 May 2019 14:51:00 +0000

Can you tell me where the above quotes are found in the Fourth Edtion of DOF? I’ve looked for them but haven’t been able to locate them. Thanks!

By: CM

CM — Fri, 31 May 2019 14:18:19 +0000

One might be tempted to think that this (newly) published book, ‘Reforming Apologetics,’ does more to misrepresent Van Tilian apologetics (with conviction) than other books are said to misrepresent other Reformed doctrines…beloved brothers.