Wow...... what an amazing thing it is to me (a retired machinist), that the three of you are managing to communicate these beautiful, scriptural truths in such a way that a simple layman can understand (albeit with some perseverance, Webster's close at hand and the Spirit's gracious leading) ..... and as a result.... worship the Lord in a deeper and more loving way. I bought a copy of "The Defense of the Faith" and have been reading it. I also purchased a copy of Lane's book "Foundations of Covenant Theology" thru the Reformed Forum website and I am thoroughly enjoying it. Praising God for Van Til Group in Thornton, CO.
I’ve really enjoyed this group so far. Van Til was always a bit difficult for me to navigate in the past. These UA-cam videos and the courses on Van Til on the Reformed Forum website have done a lot to demystify and clarify Van Til’s approach. So keep up the good work, guys. Quick note: when Carlton mentioned that the word “Reality” was capitalized in the first edition, I was surprised to see that the fourth edition, which is supposed to include “the complete text of the original” has “reality” (lowercase) instead. It made me wonder how many other terms are capitalized in the original but are now lower case in the edition that is in print. Just further evidence that a critical edition could be useful. I never would have thought the term “reality” bore some special theological/philosophical significance that Van Til was alluding to based on just reading the new edition (though I am grateful for Dr Oliphint’s explanatory notes in the new edition). Anyway, just wanted to draw attention to that, since I know everyone in the main group is reading from the first edition.
Another tremendous and superb discussion opening up the great thoughts of Van Til. Thank you very much indeed gentlemen for sharing your knowledge and insights. I personally am learning and being helped to understand the Defense of the Faith in spades by your commentary. Greetings from the UK.
I have been looking forward to this! It's been so long since #5 I am learning so much about the foundations of Presuppositional Apologetics from Van Til Group! Please make this a priority over Vos Group lol
Ugh... as someone who's read about half the book, my only complaint is.. this is a long book and there's a lot ot say. And this is grueeeeeelingly slow analysis. You literally spend like half an hour on two sentences, there's no reason you can't go over at least 15-20 pages in an hour of content, in the hour I wasted listening to this I actually went back and read almost 20 pages.
It is not an abstract essence. This is the only reason we can use the Chistian Covenantal continuity in marriage as a parallelism, or isomorphism of Husbamd ,wife amd holy spirit. Not a bogus perpetual subordination. Where tge son is perpetually subordinate to The heavenly Father..
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This series is incredibly helpful! Thank you for your hard work! I especially appreciate the segment breakdowns. Blessings!!
Looking forward to episode #7
Wow...... what an amazing thing it is to me (a retired machinist), that the three of you are managing to communicate these beautiful, scriptural truths in such a way that a simple layman can understand (albeit with some perseverance, Webster's close at hand and the Spirit's gracious leading) ..... and as a result.... worship the Lord in a deeper and more loving way. I bought a copy of "The Defense of the Faith" and have been reading it. I also purchased a copy of Lane's book "Foundations of Covenant Theology" thru the Reformed Forum website and I am thoroughly enjoying it. Praising God for Van Til Group in Thornton, CO.
From Brazil reading Van Til since 2006.
Godbless each of you...
I’ve really enjoyed this group so far. Van Til was always a bit difficult for me to navigate in the past. These UA-cam videos and the courses on Van Til on the Reformed Forum website have done a lot to demystify and clarify Van Til’s approach. So keep up the good work, guys.
Quick note: when Carlton mentioned that the word “Reality” was capitalized in the first edition, I was surprised to see that the fourth edition, which is supposed to include “the complete text of the original” has “reality” (lowercase) instead. It made me wonder how many other terms are capitalized in the original but are now lower case in the edition that is in print. Just further evidence that a critical edition could be useful. I never would have thought the term “reality” bore some special theological/philosophical significance that Van Til was alluding to based on just reading the new edition (though I am grateful for Dr Oliphint’s explanatory notes in the new edition). Anyway, just wanted to draw attention to that, since I know everyone in the main group is reading from the first edition.
Another tremendous and superb discussion opening up the great thoughts of Van Til.
Thank you very much indeed gentlemen for sharing your knowledge and insights. I personally am learning and being helped to understand the Defense of the Faith in spades by your commentary.
Greetings from the UK.
I have been looking forward to this! It's been so long since #5
I am learning so much about the foundations of Presuppositional Apologetics from Van Til Group!
Please make this a priority over Vos Group lol
I can hear the influences from where Dr. Sproul modeled his apologetics from Cornelius van Til
From what I understood, Sproul did not agree with Van Til on apologetics.
@@amandanichole6771 - he fundamentally disagreed, yes.
Huh?
Wayne Grdem is wrong.
Ugh... as someone who's read about half the book, my only complaint is.. this is a long book and there's a lot ot say. And this is grueeeeeelingly slow analysis. You literally spend like half an hour on two sentences, there's no reason you can't go over at least 15-20 pages in an hour of content, in the hour I wasted listening to this I actually went back and read almost 20 pages.
Wayne Grudem is more of a Christian Existentialis then a Trinitarian.
It is not an abstract essence. This is the only reason we can use the Chistian Covenantal continuity in marriage as a parallelism, or isomorphism of Husbamd ,wife amd holy spirit. Not a bogus perpetual subordination. Where tge son is perpetually subordinate to The heavenly Father..
First!
Curses! I'm always left with second best