2.)...which is a metaphysical principle to distinguish two objects with the identical properties. This seems to further confirm the Van Tillian understanding of our prelapsarian condition of being able to individuate objects that we still carry into our postlapsarian state. Great discussion so far. Keep up the good work.
Thanks guys. I enjoyed it. Dr. Oliphint, Art Johnson started me out on Christianity and Barthianism one year after my conversion. I thought that that kind of book was just the way it is.
Thought-provoking conversation. I could be misunderstanding, but it seems like Dr. Oliphint (and I'm guessing Van Til does as well, I'm not sure) from 27:13 to 29:14 makes the mistake of confusing law and covenant. Simply because man as creature is _obligated to_ God in the moral law, that does not mean man is by virtue of creation necessarily _in covenant with_ God. A covenant (more than just meaning dependent on God or obligated to God) is a specific commitment with divine sanctions, and we should therefore be able to identify what specific, formal covenant we mean if we are to use covenantal language. Does Dr. Oliphint here intend the Covenant of Works (as his allusion to WCF 7.1 indicates)? Or some other universal creation covenant? If so, what are this covenant's sanctions/stipulations/promises/conditions, who is its federal head, etc.? A more helpful path (and more faithful to Scripture & the confession) is to carefully distinguish law & covenant, and reaffirm that the only creation covenant we should speak of is that whereby God voluntarily condescended to make a specific covenant of works with Adam as the federal representative of humanity, promising eternal glorified life upon obedience and eternal death upon disobedience.
1.) I was hearing the comment that Camden made 30 minutes in and what Dr. Oliphint made 33 to 35 minutes in and I noticed Dr. Oliphint further expounding what was said by Camden. It seems to fit with the Van Tillian understanding of man being ethically separated from God but not metaphysically. I'm understanding it like this because you both seem to be addressing the principle of individuation...
I still have problems with the priority question: What exactly is the difference between ontological and epistemic prioritiy in regard of natural and supernatural theology?
For all those who are interested in: I thought about that problem yesterday evening, and it got clear to me:Natural theology comes prior to supernatural theology, but only in the ontological sense. This is because the bible has first to exists as "a book", before it can contain Gods supernatural speech. Epistemological, there is no priority of neither natural, nor supernatural theology. Both communicate the truth about God, whereby natural revelation communicates necessary truths about God and supernatural revelation communicates necessary and contingent truths (soteriology).
@@Gisbertus_Voetius The "Bible" doesn't doesn't need to even exist for God's supernatural speech to continue converting people, God can have other ways. The Word of God doesn't need material.
You can't understand natural revelation or Scripture, even to interpret the meaning of Scripture, without some spark of God's divine rational mind, including the basic laws of logic, even someone who is mentally challenged. Peter also says in 2 Peter 3:16 that some things Paul writes are hard to understand and untaught and unstable people twist them. Was Peter speaking of Calvinists here, among others? :)
Im grateful for Van Til.
A blessing to the church.
Glory to our Triune God!
2.)...which is a metaphysical principle to distinguish two objects with the identical properties. This seems to further confirm the Van Tillian understanding of our prelapsarian condition of being able to individuate objects that we still carry into our postlapsarian state.
Great discussion so far. Keep up the good work.
Thanks guys. I enjoyed it. Dr. Oliphint, Art Johnson started me out on Christianity and Barthianism one year after my conversion. I thought that that kind of book was just the way it is.
Thought-provoking conversation. I could be misunderstanding, but it seems like Dr. Oliphint (and I'm guessing Van Til does as well, I'm not sure) from 27:13 to 29:14 makes the mistake of confusing law and covenant. Simply because man as creature is _obligated to_ God in the moral law, that does not mean man is by virtue of creation necessarily _in covenant with_ God. A covenant (more than just meaning dependent on God or obligated to God) is a specific commitment with divine sanctions, and we should therefore be able to identify what specific, formal covenant we mean if we are to use covenantal language. Does Dr. Oliphint here intend the Covenant of Works (as his allusion to WCF 7.1 indicates)? Or some other universal creation covenant? If so, what are this covenant's sanctions/stipulations/promises/conditions, who is its federal head, etc.? A more helpful path (and more faithful to Scripture & the confession) is to carefully distinguish law & covenant, and reaffirm that the only creation covenant we should speak of is that whereby God voluntarily condescended to make a specific covenant of works with Adam as the federal representative of humanity, promising eternal glorified life upon obedience and eternal death upon disobedience.
Also see “The Myth of Religious Neutrality” by Roy A Clouser 😊
1.) I was hearing the comment that Camden made 30 minutes in and what Dr. Oliphint made 33 to 35 minutes in and I noticed Dr. Oliphint further expounding what was said by Camden. It seems to fit with the Van Tillian understanding of man being ethically separated from God but not metaphysically. I'm understanding it like this because you both seem to be addressing the principle of individuation...
I still have problems with the priority question: What exactly is the difference between ontological and epistemic prioritiy in regard of natural and supernatural theology?
For all those who are interested in: I thought about that problem yesterday evening, and it got clear to me:Natural theology comes prior to supernatural theology, but only in the ontological sense.
This is because the bible has first to exists as "a book", before it can contain Gods supernatural speech.
Epistemological, there is no priority of neither natural, nor supernatural theology. Both communicate the truth about God, whereby natural revelation communicates necessary truths about God and supernatural revelation communicates necessary and contingent truths (soteriology).
@@Gisbertus_Voetius The "Bible" doesn't doesn't need to even exist for God's supernatural speech to continue converting people, God can have other ways. The Word of God doesn't need material.
good stuff!
Shouldn't we know the original Hebrew words used in Genesis One and their context before we speak of 24-hour consecutive days???
Genesis 1:1: God created the heavens and the Earth.
You can't understand natural revelation or Scripture, even to interpret the meaning of Scripture, without some spark of God's divine rational mind, including the basic laws of logic, even someone who is mentally challenged. Peter also says in 2 Peter 3:16 that some things Paul writes are hard to understand and untaught and unstable people twist them. Was Peter speaking of Calvinists here, among others? :)
Handsome fella. Too bad he's a Calvinist.
what do you mean?
LOL! Not hardly!