Відео

I really enjoyed this discussion. Appreciate how it was moderated and how all three men expressed their ideas, sometimes challenging each other but in a very godly way. This is a good example of how a debate or just a discussion can be done in a profitable and edifying manner.

You should dump The Gospel Coalition.

Ive been memorizing Romans ~ just ordered "how to" book to guarantee faster results! Thank you, as always, for adding so much to my reading enjoyment!

Gee, Kev, is the mission of the church summarized in Matt. 28? Does it involve nations? You seem strangely ignorant of Reformed political theology.

I am very enthusiastic about continuing my studies at RTS Charlotte, but I don't have the money; Can RTS Charlotte provide opportunities for me? Dr. Cornelius Van Til has had so much influence on the way I think about truth and I'm glad Dr. James Anderson is still continuing the legacy. The Triune God is merciful always🙏🛐

As someone in the States that eventually pulled myself out of this brainwashing of the left and it's propaganda. I eventually realized that when I found my way back to my Christian values. It greatly helped to wrap myself in those values and principles to create a strong teflon against this insanity of the West. At least to a certain extent. The ability to be less swayed and manipulated or unintentionally blown away or succumbing to it again regardless of which political affiliation it comes from as long as you keep your wits about you. None of them are our friend at the end of the day. Once I began to get more and more clarity. I found it extremely disturbing how many church leaders have collapsed and given in to this critical theory under the guise of this inclusivity utopia. Therefore I find it very difficult at least in my state to find a church community that hasn't become entirely corrupted by this already when there is such an extensive demand for this, especially in the West. Thoughts on this?

In a curious way, Christians have always been the "critical theorists" since the majority view of human nature and social normal in most cultures (in spite of their consciences) was determined to maintain a depraved status quo (ex: "PAX" Romana maintained by cruelty and coercion : ) Started reading Dr. Trueman's "The Rise of the Modern Self" on retirement 4 years ago and after 400 books, I think I'll finish up with "To Change..." by the end of December : )

Amen

A start. Now we need Christians to write critiques of what is actually wrong in the present movements of justice.

At what point does presuppositionalism have to be qualified so much that it's not really saying anything?

Where in Joshua is he preaching from?

What, the danger that people might discover the gospel?

Thom Notaro's "Van Til and the Use of Evidences" is unfortunately neglected. I was converted partly through the influence of Sproul, but found Sproul insufficient for undergraduate philosophy classes. My pastors gave me Van TIl's Defense of the Faith in 1995, and it was my lifeline. In my opinion, the fundamental insight of Van Til, that sums up his whole system, is that man's problem is not fundamentally an intellectual problem, but a heart problem. Therefore, apologetics and evangelism (preaching) are always going to go hand and hand. You can give theistic proofs and argue all manner of details, but the fundamental issue of apologetics is always going to come back to prolegomena, to authority, to exposing the rebellion of the heart and calling for the submission of faith. Sure, other arguments can be used, but this is the fundamental problem and therefore, the fundamental issue of apologetics, and thus evangelism and preaching. I was in a discussion with Powlison and Paul Tripp one time, where they said CCEF's model of counseling was fundamentally based on Van Til (and Vos). One of the most practical outworkings of Van Til is in counseling. You can counsel over all manner of details, but the fundamental issue in counseling is always going to come back to an issue of the heart.

Analytic philosophy promotes materialism. Epistemic materialism is the philosophical precursor to theological liberalism. That continental philosophy is a more extreme reduction to the secular does not excuse this. The critique of overly rationalistic Moderatism is almost as old as since Presbyterianism has been at large. William Cunningham/others less read by popular audiences who sought to prove the fundamental incompatibility of ways these ideologies promote synthesis and undermine the faith have yet to get there listen.

I think Mathison is correct, Van Til's rhetoric is in part responsible for igniting the acrimonious exchanges of the past. Something I notice is much contemporary criticism of his rhetoric & misconstrual of history were first put forward by Gordon Clark in the 1940's. I'm convinced this rhetoric of compromising reformed theology wasn't just hyperbole, but engendered by a clear understanding that his method required an either or, that Van Tilian apologetics was much more than a defense of the christian faith, but by way of epistemology an all encompassing philosophy. This generates the "tension" of how much historic doctrine needs to be brought into conformity. There's nothing inherently wrong with this epistemological approach as a christian philosopher in my opinion, but if maintaining a tradition is also paramount, this is a hard place to be if your insights are unique. As a subscriber to the West Conf, he was duty bound to mediate the two, even if his unique principles might push against confessional boundaries. Being grounded like that is definitely the safer way for a christian thinker.

You need Eli Ayala of Revealed Apologetics on this show. A Vantilian

To salvage the label "Van Tillian", Dr. Anderson broadens it so wide that everyone from Warfield and Kuyper to perhaps Dr. Mathison himself, are Van Tillians! All that's required, says Anderson, is that one think Reformed Theology entails an epistemology which, in turn, entails an apologetic method. What Dr. Anderson doesn't say is that he specifically and self-consciously rejects Van Til's unique epistemology and (perhaps less explicitly) also rejects his unique metaphysic. This said, I, even I, the much-maligned "Van Tillian purist" am willing to grant that Dr Anderson is a Van Tillian - just not for the reasons he cites here. Rather, Dr. Anderson is the Van Tillian Leonidas, standing virtually alone in the Thermopylae Gap against the never-ending hoards of anti-Van Tillian Persians. (The actor playing Leonidas even had a Scottish accent! :D ) For his work maintaining the Van Til Info archive, alone, Dr. Anderson deserves an honorary "Van Tillian" title and our eternal gratitude. (His work on paradox is absolutely vital for practical application of presuppositionalism in the field. I could go on but will stop with these examples). There are many of us who think Van Til's unique epistemology and metaphysic deserve to be expounded and stated with analytic precision; we're not going to get that from Dr. Anderson. Moreover, I'm very worried his upcoming book-length treatment of these issues will further muddy the waters (hopefully Dr. Anderson is very clear and explicit in distinguishing between an explication of Van Til's position and his own creative attempts to fill in gaps or clarify opaque areas). ----- Ask yourselves, gentlemen, what was Van Til's view of "abstract objects". Do you know? Is it well-known out there? (Some I've asked about it are naive enough to assume Van Til had no view at all of abstract objects!). Read Shao Kai TSENG's chapter on the "Concrete Universal" in his book on Hegel in the Great Thinkers series to get started. Then dip into Dr. Knudsen's material on Dooyweerd and Vollenhoven to really get into the weeds of Van Til's metaphysics. A picture will develop. Will it be a picture compatible with the Lord of Non-Contradiction? Will it be compatible with Dr. Welty's Theistic Conceptualism? What was Van Til's doctrine of Transcendental Implication? He definitely got the gist of it from Bradley. James Anderson has no role for transcendental implication in his epistemology, though it seems vital and central to Van Til's. In this interview, he hand-waves it away as a sort of "contextualizing" of facts in God's sovereign decree - it certainly is that for Van Til, but so much more. Given the inherent ambiguity of every data-set, we must have recourse to a divine "summation" ...which entails an internalist sort of deductive appeal to the "self-attesting Christ of Scripture" for Van Til. And as a final gripe, consider all this talk of "knowledge" vs "true knowledge" etc. As good analytic thinkers, we ought to ask what's really going on here for Van Til. To be technically precise, we ought to say unbelievers have "true beliefs which are, nevertheless, unjustified" ... or, perhaps, we might even go so far as to say unbelievers have "warranted, true, beliefs, yet these beliefs remain unjustified for them." Or, more accurate, I think we can say that, for Van Til, unbelievers had true beliefs which are presumptively-justified: the unbeliever's belief that the sky is blue would be rationally justified if he would make the correct appeal to the Word of Christ... I think this handful of issues begins to highlight a bit of Van Tillian nuance that is almost never brought forward and, if considered, would show that being a Van Tillian (yes - spelled with two LL's; it was good enough for Frame!) ...is more than just a methodological window-dressing. There are real metaphysical and epistemological models on the line.

I appreciate the good faith conversation. These debates often end up being a mission to refute rather than understand the opposing position, and I think the opposite was the case here. I think, however, there are a few points where Dr. Matthison is still missing Van Til. 1. The way Dr Matthison speaks about the absolute antithesis is misleading. He speaks of Van Til "qualifying" the antithesis with common grace. This gives the impression that Van Til starts with an absolute irreconcialble antithesis and back tracks or waters it down by adding common grace afterwards. However, I don't think its accurate to view the antithesis as the central dogma of Van Til's thought. The shared metaphysical situation established by the doctrines of creation and the image, the in-principle epistemological antithesis and supression of the truth created by the fall, and the restraint of the antithesis by common grace and the remaining image in the wider sense must be understood together as flowing out of Van Til's systematic theology. There isn't one facet the controls the other. 2. With regard to the exclusitivty claim, Van Til's wholistic view of knowledge comes into play. It's true that for Van Til, there are facts the as far as they go are agreed upon by Christians and non-Christians. But the non-Christian is situating those facts within a non-Christian worldview, which, due to the ethical hostility he has to God, is ultimately bent to supress the knowledge of God. The non-Christian then, insofar as he is consitent with his ethical hosility, will not reason from the facts which are on one level shared to a true, Christian conclusion. For example, the law of cause and effect is shared by most people as observed from reality. For the Christian, its founded on the providential care of God over his creation. For the non-Christian, it may just be a brute fact of an impersonal universe that we have discovered by scientific investigation or believe in by common sense or must employ due to the nature of our mind. If we attempt to use the law to argue to the necessity of a first cause, the non-Christian may appeal to our limitations as humans or to the mystery of the universe, which are fundamentally appeals to autonomy, to deny that there must be a first cause. Or he may, by the workings of common grace and felicitous inconsistency, accept the conclusion. Van Til is concerned to be absolutely consistent, and so rather than allowing for the possibility of the non-Christian denying a seemingly neutral shared fact and further supressing the truth, he wants to force the argument to first principles. That is why Van Til is so adamant on method; it is possible, and really often is the case that the Spirit works through the classical arguments, but only the presuppositional method lays bare the fundamental conflict.

Is there or will you be doing a review of the covenant theology book by Dr Sam Renihan ?

At some point Van Tilians need to move on from regurgitating to applying Van Tilian thinking in all area of theology including Bibliology, Reforming hermeneutics, etc.

Great to see you three together, combining your libraries. That is not an easy thing to do!

Presup >>>>

Mathison should be embarrassed at this level of shoddy scholarship. One would think he would have watched Bahnsen's many explanations of Van Til's apologetics. Mathison made clear in the first 20 minutes he didn't understand the main premises of Van Til's work. Disappointing. At least I don't need to waste money on his book. He should have interacted more often with James Anderson, who does understand Van Til.

I'm a James Anderson enjoyer, though I have become less presuppositional over time

KDY spends an hour and fifteen moderating well (although JA is the only one asked to defend himself) until KM explains his actual plan for talking to unbelievers, and KDY is like "Nah, you should use a Van Til approach instead". :) But overall I thought this was a helpful video. I've actually been spending the past month slowly reading Van Til (Common Grace & the Gospel) (and even some articles from JA's website!). So I'm obviously biased, but I think that a charitable reading of CVT is such a blessing for Christian faith and apologetics.

Rousas John Rushdoony By What Standard

Good job James!!! Well put.

Howdy professor!

Fantastic discussion!

Thanks for this. Id love to see one of the guys from Reformed Forum come on and have this conversation with Mathison or Fesko.

Keith seems to be hung up on "this is the only method that's valid."

Appreciate all three for doing this.

I'm totally enjoying DeYoung's "Daily Doctrine" ~ stored my huge systematic theology & using this now

So thankful for RC Sproul. The Gospel, Holiness of God, Covenant theology, Law-gospel distinction, Imputation, The Sovereignty of God, Ordo Salutis, Doctrines of Grace, the Trinity - a faithful preacher of Reformed doctrine - and I am a changed man for it! I often thank God for him and take great comfort that he is now part of the general assembly and the church of the firstborn enrolled in heaven. One day, I look forward to meeting him, a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Excellent seminar.

Clearly Reformed always like the mailman. Always delivers on time

This was a good interview. I sat under Dr. Nichols’s teaching at LBC when he started there in the mid 1990’s.

Thank you for sharing these videos with us. Are there any versions of this video in which we can see the marker board?

❤❤thank you

Great!

Awesome organization 👏🏻

Daily doctrine, what a great idea. . .t y for writing it.

I get so tired of hearing the name John Piper as if he is a guru of somekind that sycophants worship and follow around as if brain dead. Piper is a compromising semi woke coward and overrated thinker who endorses and associates with all sorts of false Christians and is a pro Charismatic delusion proponent. How do people like this become so popular? As DeYoung here they are more suited as high school teachers not Pastors and men of God. Kevin has also denounced his whiteness and privilege as dp most of his cohorts in ministry who are affiliated with the Gospel Coalition wokers. Has Kevin repented of all the lies he put forth against Doug Wilson and the infamous Moscow mood? This fairy looking weasel and his pathetic attempt to look cool and young in order to impress todays youth is a disgrace before God and real men. What a terrible representation of Christianity. That goes for DA Carson Mark Dever and the rest. Sad though there are no Whitefields today. In stead we get the clowns of so called reformed celebrity evangelicalism. Boys standing only where men ought to be. God have mercy on us.

You stated that after Bunyan would be a Owen lecture given by Greg Salazar, I was wondering where is that one?

You stated that after Bunyan would be a Owen lecture given by Greg Salazar, I was wondering where is that one?

Please more of these! :)

Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University Jonathan Edwards [1722], The "Miscellanies": (Entry Nos. a-z, aa-zz, 1-500) (WJE Online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout [word count] [jec-wjeo13]. -- 169 -- n. DAMNATION OF INFANTS. One of these two things are certainly true, and self-evidently so: either that it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments, or else that those infants that are saved are not saved by the death of Christ. For none are saved by the death of Christ from damnation that have not deserved damnation. Wherefore, if it be very just, it is but a foolish piece of nonsense, to cry out of it as blasphemous to suppose that it ever is [just], because (they say) it is contrary to his mercy. Now such I ask, whether it is contrary to his mercy to inflict punishment upon any according to their deserts, and whether it was contrary to God's mercy to damn the fallen angels. There was no mercy showed to them at all. And why is it blasphemous to suppose that God should inflict upon infants so much as they have deserved, without mercy, as well as [upon] them?MS: "as they"; the reference is to the fallen angels, whereas the preceding "they" refers to infants. If you say, they have not deserved it so much, I answer: they certainly have deserved what they have deserved, as much as the fallen angels; because their sin is not accompanied with such aggravating circumstances, so neither shall their punishment be so aggravated. So that the punishment of one is every whit as contrary -- 170 -- to God's mercy as [that of] the other. Who shall determine just now much sin is sufficient to make damnation agreeable to the divine perfections? And how can they determine that infants have not so much sin? For we know they have enough to make their damnation very just. Edwards Yale Edu /archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4xMjo0OjEud2plby41NjQ4NTI=

I look forward to reading it. But, I wish Carl would do the book on Phillip Rieff that he started that developed into "Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self".

You did so good presenting Jonathan Edwards, I can't wait to meet him! 😅🙏🏻🙌🏻

Amen