"VAN TIL MADE ME REFORMED"

"New Horizons" ^ | October, 2004 | Eric H. Sigward

[thePilgrim]

***William Lane Craig is about the only modern classical apologist I can think of, off the top of my head.***

I guess if you are into the heresy of Molinism.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

[jude24]

for every person who has read Van Til, there are likely thousands who have read C.S. Lewis.

What the hoo-hah does the number of readers have to do with the truth or falsity of the claims found within?

Van Til might well be the more accurate apologist, and just be a horrible communicator. C.S. Lewis could be an excellent writer with no substance. (I disagree with that last statement; I consider Mere Christianity one of the three most important books I read.)

CTD: you know darn well numbers don't enter into the issue of the merits of their claims. It's at best a diversionary tactic.

[connectthedots]

I've never read a Harry Potter book. BTW, what does Harry Potter have to do with either C.S. Lewis or Van Til?

[jude24]

About as much as numbers have to do with the truth or falsity of the claims of either Van Til or Lewis.

In other words, they're irrelevant. But you're an expert at raising red herrings.

[Corin Stormhands]

Some people simply don't have the God given ability or desire to sit for hours thinking about theology.

In other words, the poor masses need someone smarter and closer to God to do their thinking for them? Wasn't the rejection of that kind of thinking one of the reasons for The Reformation?

And FWIW, I'm not criticizing Van Til. Haven't read him. Haven't read the article. Don't have the time to.

I was pinged here and I stopped by. I'm going now.

[jude24]

I would liken Van Til to a thinking man's theologian. Some people simply don't have the God given ability or desire to sit for hours thinking about theology.

More accurately, not everyone is inclined or suited to read technical theology.

There is nothing wrong with that. Technical theology isn't the essence of Christianity. As Augustine said about philosophy, theology is a handmaiden - a tool that can be used for good or for ill.

[connectthedots]

Part of being a good apologist is being an effective communicator. I would suggest that C.S. Lewis is excellent in that area and Van Til was not so good, at least when it comes to communicating the Gospel to the vast majority of people. One should be careful about thinking that intelligent people need complex arguments in order to belief the simple Gospel message.

[humblegunner]

I had a Van Til I bought a pickup.
It never made me reformed though.

[thePilgrim]

***More accurately, not everyone is inclined or suited to read technical theology.***

Call it what you want. Not everyone needs to read Van Til, despite bad mood attempts by some to put words in my mouth. Personally, I eat this kind of stuff up. But, then again, I'll take a single verse of scripture and spend a day thinking about it, too. It's just my personality.

That doesn't mean that I don't read Lewis too, despite his Arminianism. Heck I even read William Craig Lane. That is how I know that he is a Middle Knowledge advocate.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

[jude24]

Not everyone needs to read Van Til

I guess that's good, since I found it the hardest reading I've ever attempted. Maybe I'll try again sometime.

despite bad mood attempts by some to put words in my mouth.

It was a legitimate concern.

I'll take a single verse of scripture and spend a day thinking about it, too.

Most of us here do, too; although I tend to also be the type to synthesize a rule and get the broad sweep. It's the law student in me, I guess.

That doesn't mean that I don't read Lewis too, despite his Arminianism.

The thing that struck me about Lewis in Mere Christianity was just how Calvinistic he was for an Arminian. I think calling him an Arminian might be an oversimplification.

[Frumanchu]

Sproul? Not according to my notes. He's pretty presuppositionalist. You don't generally see Calvinist Classical Apologists.

Actually that's not accurate, jude. Sproul is indeed a classical apologist. In fact, he co-authored a book with John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley called Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics.

[jude24]

My source is wrong, then.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Never too late. 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Hi, Corin. When you have the time, check out the article. It's pretty good.

[thePilgrim]

***I guess that's good, since I found it the hardest reading I've ever attempted. Maybe I'll try again sometime.***

My head sometimes hurts after reading some things. But, like I said, Van Til is definitely not for everyone.

***The thing that struck me about Lewis in Mere Christianity was just how Calvinistic he was for an Arminian. I think calling him an Arminian might be an oversimplification.***

Odd. Overall, I found him extremely Arminian when he does state his theology. Perhaps it is interesting that in expounding "mere" Christianity it would sound so Calvinistic. That does slap the face of the idea that Calvinism is a "thinking man's" theology. Perhaps when you get down to simple Christianity you wind up with Reformed doctrine.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

[blue-duncan]

"he co-authored a book with John Gerstner", Your mention of the late John Gerstner brought back fond memories of seminary day in Denver Colo. when I was fortunate to sit in on a debate between John, Avery Dulles, before he became a Cardinal, and Jacob Neusner. The subject was "original sin", and after Dulles' ponderous philosophical dissertation and Neusner's sarcasms, Gerstner came on as a humble teacher and gave one of the clearest scriptural explanation of original sin and then proceeded to tear up Dulles' and Neusner's arguments by using scripture, theology and the early church fathers, all with just a few notes. When I grow up again, I want to be like him.

[Lexinom]

You should, all of you, listen to this debate between Van Til's late student Dr. Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Bahnsen does not merely "tread water"; he completely undermines the basis of Stein's argument.

I promise you will enjoy it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thanks, Lex. That debate is classic.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen was wonderful. Gone too soon.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I would have liked to see that debate. I envy you.

[rwfromkansas]

It is taking me a long time just to read this article and digest the Till quotes.

Yikes.

I know Till is BIG BIG in my Reformed Presby denomination.