This is a deeply profound and awe-inspiring conversation. This may be the best articulation I have heard on the God-Man Relation and the core nature of sin. In essence, all sin is idolatry and entails the blasphemous notion that finite, mutable man can judge the infinite, immutable God.
On Adam having to overcome his finitude to be able to adjudicate between God’s word and the serpent’s, I have cannot support that thought either. John Frame says that Adam is accountable exactly because he knew that God’s word alone is the ultimate standard of truth.
I think y’all should read through “Van Til’s Apologetic” by Greg Bahnsen instead of pick something from Van Til himself. The man was brilliant but his thinking was terribly disorganized for people unfamiliar to transcendental argumentation. In the book mentioned above, Bahnsen systematized the thought of Van Til in 9 chapters. It’s essentially an anthology with running commentary by Bahnsen.
I'm sure they're aware of Bahnsen. The problem is that he does not necessarily accurately explain Van Til, and so a good approach is to simply read and discuss the original.
Yes I have read the book and I do not find Bahnsen providing any real insight that these brothers do not supersede. It is better to work through the original. So much of Van Til is missed because we do not work through him. The first time I read DOF, I did it a few pages at a time. One of the best things I ever did.
"God does not participate in the becoming of man"? But the Word of God became man, took on flesh and opened a path for us to incorruption - of course God is active in man's becoming, that is salvation history! His communication to us changes _everything_ about what man is and can become, no? (I must be missing something...) "Man does not participate in the being of God"? Well, that suggests to me only _separation_ from God, no possible union with God, Hell. It also seems to say we don't 'really' receive the Spirit (who is God, after all...). Sorry, I'm not seeing the benefit of the line of thought outlined here. It seems to me to obliterate the Gospel, tending to formal, forensic, abstract 'conclusions'; whereas the Gospel is an invitation into God's eternal life (and how can that not be an aspect of sharing the being of the Living God?). Scripture says that by the Spirit given to us and in adopted Sonship we become partakers of the divine nature. That participation does not imply exhausting God's incomprehensibility or some idol of comprehensive knowledge (not sure why this is such an obsession). It does not imply possession, ownership, monopoly, or even rights over that divine nature. Participation is not a 'metaphysical ascent' by man's doing or knowledge or merit - but all that doesn't mean participation isn't a real thing. It is a gift of grace (to our weakness, in our broken rendedness before God) which we approach or open to through lifelong existential commitment to God's Word, through prayer, love, faith, virtue, sacraments, etc. But that grace _is_ really and concretely given to us - not that we should boast of our own measure of course; we glory in the Lord, in the One God forever incomprehensible. The experience of grace does not erase our creatureliness this side of death (no one has ever asserted that, have they? a sure heresy), but it is God communicating himself to us (not an emissary, or intermediary, or representative) - it is an introduction to the triune of life of God, which sprouts on earth and, if we stay true, will blossom in heaven. So, I am sorta confused about the emphasis in the first 3/4th of the video - is it about epistemological humility? What is the proof that "deification" or theosis (rightly understood) is a wrong horizon, or not possible? Shall we presume to know everything God wishes to give us of himself? What justifies replacing St Peter's language of partaking with Van Til's "religious fellowship"? Thank you for the talk.
Van Til taught a tripartite doctrine of man. He split man's psychology into a rational part and an irrational part, much like Freud did. This poisoned his definition of FAITH to include an irrational component to faith, a "heart" emotion addition to the definition. His definition of faith is FAITH PLUS "heart." He therefore rejected FAITH ALONE.
Possibly my favorite episode, Fellows. Thank you
This is a deeply profound and awe-inspiring conversation. This may be the best articulation I have heard on the God-Man Relation and the core nature of sin. In essence, all sin is idolatry and entails the blasphemous notion that finite, mutable man can judge the infinite, immutable God.
Thank you gentlemen! I was wonder about this question for the past two days. And boom, here you guys are!
Physical expression of species
On Adam having to overcome his finitude to be able to adjudicate between God’s word and the serpent’s, I have cannot support that thought either. John Frame says that Adam is accountable exactly because he knew that God’s word alone is the ultimate standard of truth.
Because there is difficulty to believe gust think that you didn't get it
I think y’all should read through “Van Til’s Apologetic” by Greg Bahnsen instead of pick something from Van Til himself. The man was brilliant but his thinking was terribly disorganized for people unfamiliar to transcendental argumentation. In the book mentioned above, Bahnsen systematized the thought of Van Til in 9 chapters. It’s essentially an anthology with running commentary by Bahnsen.
Why when these brothers do a better job of explaining CVT than Bahnsen. It’s about so much more than deploying the transcendental argument.
@@Swygard Have you read the book?
I'm sure they're aware of Bahnsen. The problem is that he does not necessarily accurately explain Van Til, and so a good approach is to simply read and discuss the original.
@@enjoyyourrabbit Have you read the book? Did you see my comment above that said the book is an anthology of Van Til?
Yes I have read the book and I do not find Bahnsen providing any real insight that these brothers do not supersede. It is better to work through the original. So much of Van Til is missed because we do not work through him. The first time I read DOF, I did it a few pages at a time. One of the best things I ever did.
"God does not participate in the becoming of man"? But the Word of God became man, took on flesh and opened a path for us to incorruption - of course God is active in man's becoming, that is salvation history! His communication to us changes _everything_ about what man is and can become, no? (I must be missing something...) "Man does not participate in the being of God"? Well, that suggests to me only _separation_ from God, no possible union with God, Hell. It also seems to say we don't 'really' receive the Spirit (who is God, after all...). Sorry, I'm not seeing the benefit of the line of thought outlined here. It seems to me to obliterate the Gospel, tending to formal, forensic, abstract 'conclusions'; whereas the Gospel is an invitation into God's eternal life (and how can that not be an aspect of sharing the being of the Living God?).
Scripture says that by the Spirit given to us and in adopted Sonship we become partakers of the divine nature. That participation does not imply exhausting God's incomprehensibility or some idol of comprehensive knowledge (not sure why this is such an obsession). It does not imply possession, ownership, monopoly, or even rights over that divine nature. Participation is not a 'metaphysical ascent' by man's doing or knowledge or merit - but all that doesn't mean participation isn't a real thing. It is a gift of grace (to our weakness, in our broken rendedness before God) which we approach or open to through lifelong existential commitment to God's Word, through prayer, love, faith, virtue, sacraments, etc. But that grace _is_ really and concretely given to us - not that we should boast of our own measure of course; we glory in the Lord, in the One God forever incomprehensible. The experience of grace does not erase our creatureliness this side of death (no one has ever asserted that, have they? a sure heresy), but it is God communicating himself to us (not an emissary, or intermediary, or representative) - it is an introduction to the triune of life of God, which sprouts on earth and, if we stay true, will blossom in heaven.
So, I am sorta confused about the emphasis in the first 3/4th of the video - is it about epistemological humility? What is the proof that "deification" or theosis (rightly understood) is a wrong horizon, or not possible? Shall we presume to know everything God wishes to give us of himself? What justifies replacing St Peter's language of partaking with Van Til's "religious fellowship"?
Thank you for the talk.
This conversation (analogia entis) reminds me of why I shook off the obscurantist dust of modernist, Protestant Gnosticism and crossed the Tiber
Van Til taught a tripartite doctrine of man. He split man's psychology into a rational part and an irrational part, much like Freud did. This poisoned his definition of FAITH to include an irrational component to faith, a "heart" emotion addition to the definition. His definition of faith is FAITH PLUS "heart." He therefore rejected FAITH ALONE.
ohhh boy...no wonder OPC and all other presbiterian churches are in the state they are...Van Til was a very confused individual
He can't because the brain w is lol l have to be regrown ing