Comments on: The Essential Van Til — More on Old Princeton https://reformedforum.org/the-essential-van-til-more-on-old-princeton/ Reformed Theological Resources Fri, 05 Jan 2018 18:42:24 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2 By: Jim Cassidy https://reformedforum.org/the-essential-van-til-more-on-old-princeton/#comment-3536855 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 18:42:24 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=5981#comment-3536855 In reply to Pip Brandy.

Thanks, Pip. Van Til is basically saying that there is nothing common between the believer and unbeliever in terms of the right use of reason. The believer alone has a “new man” (using Paul’s language here), but not the unbeliever. Therefore, the believer should not seek a point of contact epistemologically with the unbeliever as if the unbeliever has a new man – or regenerate soul – with which he may rightly function epistemologically.

]]> By: Pip Brandy https://reformedforum.org/the-essential-van-til-more-on-old-princeton/#comment-3532054 Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:41:44 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=5981#comment-3532054 Thank you for your article. I do have quick question. You quote Van Til in the following: “Now it is quite in accord with the genius of Hodge’s theology to appeal to the “old man” in the sinner and altogether out of accord with his theology to appeal to the “new man” in the sinner as though he would form a basically proper judgment on any question.”

I find this language a bit confusing, what he means by the “old man” and “new man”, but apparently in the same “sinner”, etc. Would it be possible to point to some examples of Hodge and/or Warfield (or other OP types) engaging in this kind of appeal? I’m hoping an example would help clarify what Van Til means here. Also, how would Van Til provide a proper appeal in this case?

Thanks!

]]>