Part of a good transcendental critique must be drawing the lines between the dots for people to see clearly. If I have any critique of Van Til, it is that
In The New Modernism Van Til identifies the Theology of Crisis with “dialectical theology.” But what is dialectical theology? Van Til explains that dialectical theology is “at bottom activistic and
At long last we have come to the end of the beginning (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). We have reviewed Van Til’s opening salvo against Barth’s theology as it
Van Til now turns to Barth’s doctrine of creation. Barth denies that creation as it came forth from the hand of God was good, and was to have a genuine
As we continue to unpack Van Til’s review of Zerbe’s book we come to the second part of the review, which concerns Barth’s epistemology. Van Til opens with an absurd
When I first heard about Barth’s concept of the “wholly other” God, it sounded perfectly orthodox. Barth’s emphasis on the qualitative difference between God and man struck me as nothing
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] There we underscored Van Til’s
God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom are often thought to be in competition with one another in a sort of zero-sum game: either God is sovereign or I am free. This has
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 published about Barth in a
For Van Til no form of unbelief escapes the charge of rationalism. Irrationalism is only a disguised form of rationalism. But before getting to that, it might help to explain
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 begins with the god of
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
The Reformation restored the holistic nature of faith to include both knowledge and trust in keeping with the organic unity of the whole person and our union with the whole
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
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 of
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 dualism
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 questions of “fact” and views of
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 not the same? Is Barth
The triumph of the eternal decree of God over history is just as much a problem as the triumph of history over the eternal decree. In an attempt to stave
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 does Barth offer us a
I am always edified when I read Van Til. I am also always challenged to conform my thinking to the Holy Scriptures and the Reformed faith. But I am not
Who says Van Til is impractical? I would argue that Van Til in all his writing always has an eye towards the church. All of his theologizing, all of his
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 Emil Brunner. That moniker is
Going hand-in-hand with what we said in a previous post about rendering God not God, Van Til points up how unbelieving thought assumes a neutral view of reality, and in
Van Til is a master at exegeting unbelief. This is helpful for apologetics. If we do not understand the unbeliever in a biblical way, inevitably our approach to defending the
Following Kuyper and Bavinck, Van Til so emphasized the antithesis between believer and unbeliever that many have concluded that Van Til cuts the unbeliever off from any point of contact
I’ve come again, afresh, to the writings of Cornelius Van Til. Lord willing, my plan is to compose a monograph on Van Til’s critique of Karl Barth over the next
The Covenantal Structure of the Westminster Confession of Faith Written at the entrance of the temple of Reformed theology are the words: “God does not exist because of man, but
All heresies with respect to the Trinity may be reduced to the one great heresy of mixing the eternal and the temporal. — Cornelius Van Til Cornelius Van Til cut
Cornelius Van Til concludes his chapter on Scripture in his Introduction to Systematic Theology with a note of pastoral wisdom. It is not sufficient … to instruct the church in certain positions
Part of a good transcendental critique must be drawing the lines between the dots for people to see clearly. If I have any critique of Van Til, it is that
In The New Modernism Van Til identifies the Theology of Crisis with “dialectical theology.” But what is dialectical theology? Van Til explains that dialectical theology is “at bottom activistic and
At long last we have come to the end of the beginning (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). We have reviewed Van Til’s opening salvo against Barth’s theology as it
Van Til now turns to Barth’s doctrine of creation. Barth denies that creation as it came forth from the hand of God was good, and was to have a genuine
As we continue to unpack Van Til’s review of Zerbe’s book we come to the second part of the review, which concerns Barth’s epistemology. Van Til opens with an absurd
When I first heard about Barth’s concept of the “wholly other” God, it sounded perfectly orthodox. Barth’s emphasis on the qualitative difference between God and man struck me as nothing
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] There we underscored Van Til’s
God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom are often thought to be in competition with one another in a sort of zero-sum game: either God is sovereign or I am free. This has
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 published about Barth in a
For Van Til no form of unbelief escapes the charge of rationalism. Irrationalism is only a disguised form of rationalism. But before getting to that, it might help to explain
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 begins with the god of
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
The Reformation restored the holistic nature of faith to include both knowledge and trust in keeping with the organic unity of the whole person and our union with the whole
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
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 of
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 dualism
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 questions of “fact” and views of
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 not the same? Is Barth
The triumph of the eternal decree of God over history is just as much a problem as the triumph of history over the eternal decree. In an attempt to stave
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 does Barth offer us a
I am always edified when I read Van Til. I am also always challenged to conform my thinking to the Holy Scriptures and the Reformed faith. But I am not
Who says Van Til is impractical? I would argue that Van Til in all his writing always has an eye towards the church. All of his theologizing, all of his
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 Emil Brunner. That moniker is
Going hand-in-hand with what we said in a previous post about rendering God not God, Van Til points up how unbelieving thought assumes a neutral view of reality, and in
Van Til is a master at exegeting unbelief. This is helpful for apologetics. If we do not understand the unbeliever in a biblical way, inevitably our approach to defending the
Following Kuyper and Bavinck, Van Til so emphasized the antithesis between believer and unbeliever that many have concluded that Van Til cuts the unbeliever off from any point of contact
I’ve come again, afresh, to the writings of Cornelius Van Til. Lord willing, my plan is to compose a monograph on Van Til’s critique of Karl Barth over the next
The Covenantal Structure of the Westminster Confession of Faith Written at the entrance of the temple of Reformed theology are the words: “God does not exist because of man, but
All heresies with respect to the Trinity may be reduced to the one great heresy of mixing the eternal and the temporal. — Cornelius Van Til Cornelius Van Til cut
Cornelius Van Til concludes his chapter on Scripture in his Introduction to Systematic Theology with a note of pastoral wisdom. It is not sufficient … to instruct the church in certain positions
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.
Miracle of Spring A strange thing has taken placeA labor overnight—That by the thousands apaceNew births brought forth to light.Till now my yard was winter,The wind turns south, I wingBack
Summer By Geerhardus Vos Translated by Daniel Ragusa Though thousands of signs do brimThat he the land has graced,How shall I ever find him?Where do his footsteps haste?What tidings, O
Autumn By Geerhardus Vos Translated by Daniel Ragusa Still lingers golden autumn, still stand harvest colors,Ripening in field, still roams through woods and gardensA lovely postlude of summer’s most pleasant
I had the privilege of participating in a panel discussion on Danny Olinger’s excellent biography of Geerhardus Vos at the Presbyterian Scholars Conference, held at Harbor House, Wheaton College, on
