Just a comment about Camden's view of Bahnsen's VanTillian focus points. Dr. Bahnsen was, according to his own words, attempting to work out or go into much more detail those specific areas where Professor VanTil did not elaborate on. Particularly those very epistemological details. I believe that Dr. Bahnsen was in fact attempting, like long division, to show Professor Van Til's "work" with regards to apologetic methodology. That may be why he did not focus and work out extensively Van Til's trinitarian teaching.
one more quick point -- Could there be some underlying resentment at Westminster towards Dr. Bahnsen? On the popular level, he is considered *the* expert on Van Til. He's also known for taking Westminster to task over the Theonomy issue. It must grate on Westminster knowing that he is considered the authority on Van Til. Is this narrative account driven by some underlying resentment towards Dr. Bahnsen because of those two counts?
-- to conclude my thought: In point of fact, Dr. Bahnsen admits (in numerous recordings) the absolute importance of God's trinitarian nature and its relationship to Van TIl's apologetic methodology. Furthermore, Bahnsen often admits that he looks forward to the day when advances in the analytic philosophy of religion will clarify and supplement Van Til's work. Toward that end, I'm sure he'd be thrilled with works like Dolezal's book on Simplicity, and Tipton's work on the Trinity.
@@PaDutchRunner It's trendy at the moment for analytically inclined apologists to move into what Feser called "Theistic Personalism"... I'm not a Bahnsen scholar but my intuition is, he would have defended classical theism over and against the personalist accounts. Van til was a classical theology guy, so too Bahnsen. And I'm surprised to hear Bahnsen has modern day acolytes...outside his many lay fans. I'd love to read some of their work and hear about why they think Van Til was wrong about Simplicity (for example).
Mr. Bucey, I've hear this narrative expressed or implied in other Reformed Forum episodes as well. I mean, the narrative that Bahnsen was bad on the Trinity, Frame was bad on transcendental arguments, Oliphint / Westminster is great at both. But, there seems to be this angst against Dr. Bahnsen at Westminster. I can almost hear Dr. Tipton huff'n'puff when, during a lecture on the Covenant of Works and Epistemology, someone asks him about Bahnsen. He reiterates the same narrative.
I have asked this question of Van Tillian disciples, and will ask it here as well; Will Van Til Apologists be content with sharing the stage with Classical and Evidential Apologists going forward? I read " Always Ready", and my impression was that Greg immediately, in the first chapters,attempted to equate commonality with autonomy and neutrality. I can imagine the formula being " commonality= autonomy=neutrality=sin ". If this is the case, then there are major problems, because the apologies in the New Testament do not reach the same conclusion. It seems to me that Van Til Apologists are attempting to discredit and disown any apologetic method but their own from Reformed Theology, and imply that the Classical method violates the unspoken " Van Til formula " mentioned above. This is further evidenced when I see such lectures as " Covenantal; Not Classical ". It really seems as though Van Tillians are producing a " straw man " apology, apart from their own, to then tear down, especially since R.C. Sproul has passed. Could van Tillians be, in fact, attempting an " apologetics coup" and attempting to establish the " Van Til method " as the only Biblically and Reformed authorized method of Apologetics? Someone please tell me I'm wrong.
Light Of The Word commonality doesn’t mean adopting the unbeliever’s espoused foundation for knowledge. We seek commonality and Apologetic discussion, (for if there was none, discussion of any sort is unintelligible) as Van Til has said, “the unbeliever can count, he just can’t account for counting.” Why can he count? Because he knows God in his heart even though he suppresses that Knowledge. He can’t account for that knowledge however, since in his suppression of the truth, he has decided to come up with an alternative basis to knowledge. As far as Contentment goes, the answer is two fold. In one sense yes, because Van Til never rejected employing evidences and the Classical Proofs, just insisted that they be formulated in a way that was true to the Christian understanding of reality. In this sense the answer that Van Tilian’s want to take over Apologetics, the answer is yes for the sake of all Apologetics having a Christian worldview and all facts are interpreted within a Christian framework of reality. Presuppositional Apologetics deals with issues at such a deep Epistemological level, that to deal with Presuppositions (foundational assumptions that guide one’s worldview) your going far beyond the realm of evidences and standard arguments. Indeed your dealing with one’s ultimate authority and standard in the knowing process. Bahnsen in particular, is concerned that if you argue about evidences without a Christian framework of reality, you will be adopting the unbelievers worldview and will run into problems if he is philosophically sophisticated. Here’s an example he likes to use. Say you prove using evidences Jesus rose from the dead, that unbeliever doesn’t have to accept that he is God. He could just say, ‘wow, strange things happen in this world, and there must be a naturalistic explanation for it.’ Van Til doesn’t want to leave the unbeliever thinking that he has a place to stand intellectually apart from God and scripture. He says that the unbeliever is living in rebellion against God, and while denying him, still lives in God’s world in which all things point to God and reveal him. So in one sense we approve of the use of classical and evidential approaches, so long as they using a Christian framework for understanding reality and in which scripture is our foundation for how we can account for our knowledge and interpretation of the world. But if those approaches are assuming unbelievers way of knowing (so everything is only naturalistic, materialistic, agnostic, etc.) then we are left in two ways of seeing things without effective Dialoge, or worse, the unbeliever could be right and we could be wrong. But the Bible is clear that all unbelief is foolishness and God has been clearly revealed, due to this, we are to honor Christ as Lord of our hearts, mind, and all that we are. In other words, we are commanded to “Let God be true, and Everyman be a liar.” Hope that adds some clarity.
seriously . .....tho. I never thought and elephant would challenge Bahnsen....and I have too much to think about ...thanks for thought out clarification.....
Since Van Til was a modalist on the trinity, it follows that your assertion that Van Til's view of the trinity informed his apologetics shows that Van Til was inherently contradictory. Van Til said that God is both one Person and three Persons.
@Russell Peacock Here: "These titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not different names of the same person in different relations, but of different persons." -Van Til, _An_ _Introduction_ _to_ _Systematic_ _Theology_ , ch. 17, sec. C
Just a comment about Camden's view of Bahnsen's VanTillian focus points. Dr. Bahnsen was, according to his own words, attempting to work out or go into much more detail those specific areas where Professor VanTil did not elaborate on. Particularly those very epistemological details. I believe that Dr. Bahnsen was in fact attempting, like long division, to show Professor Van Til's "work" with regards to apologetic methodology. That may be why he did not focus and work out extensively Van Til's trinitarian teaching.
This is great. Thank you.
Thank you for your insights. I am enjoying Bahnsen's book, Van Til's Apologetic.
one more quick point --
Could there be some underlying resentment at Westminster towards Dr. Bahnsen? On the popular level, he is considered *the* expert on Van Til. He's also known for taking Westminster to task over the Theonomy issue. It must grate on Westminster knowing that he is considered the authority on Van Til.
Is this narrative account driven by some underlying resentment towards Dr. Bahnsen because of those two counts?
-- to conclude my thought:
In point of fact, Dr. Bahnsen admits (in numerous recordings) the absolute importance of God's trinitarian nature and its relationship to Van TIl's apologetic methodology. Furthermore, Bahnsen often admits that he looks forward to the day when advances in the analytic philosophy of religion will clarify and supplement Van Til's work.
Toward that end, I'm sure he'd be thrilled with works like Dolezal's book on Simplicity, and Tipton's work on the Trinity.
If this is the case, it would place Bahnsen at odds with many of his present day followers who reject many of the categories of classical theism.
@@PaDutchRunner It's trendy at the moment for analytically inclined apologists to move into what Feser called "Theistic Personalism"...
I'm not a Bahnsen scholar but my intuition is, he would have defended classical theism over and against the personalist accounts. Van til was a classical theology guy, so too Bahnsen.
And I'm surprised to hear Bahnsen has modern day acolytes...outside his many lay fans. I'd love to read some of their work and hear about why they think Van Til was wrong about Simplicity (for example).
@@PaDutchRunner true
love Bahnsen 😍
Mr. Bucey,
I've hear this narrative expressed or implied in other Reformed Forum episodes as well. I mean, the narrative that Bahnsen was bad on the Trinity, Frame was bad on transcendental arguments, Oliphint / Westminster is great at both.
But, there seems to be this angst against Dr. Bahnsen at Westminster. I can almost hear Dr. Tipton huff'n'puff when, during a lecture on the Covenant of Works and Epistemology, someone asks him about Bahnsen. He reiterates the same narrative.
Bahnsen is troubling. His post millennial reconstructionism is ultimately not biblical.
I have asked this question of Van Tillian disciples, and will ask it here as well; Will Van Til Apologists be content with sharing the stage with Classical and Evidential Apologists going forward? I read " Always Ready", and my impression was that Greg immediately, in the first chapters,attempted to equate commonality with autonomy and neutrality. I can imagine the formula being " commonality= autonomy=neutrality=sin ". If this is the case, then there are major problems, because the apologies in the New Testament do not reach the same conclusion. It seems to me that Van Til Apologists are attempting to discredit and disown any apologetic method but their own from Reformed Theology, and imply that the Classical method violates the unspoken " Van Til formula " mentioned above. This is further evidenced when I see such lectures as " Covenantal; Not Classical ". It really seems as though Van Tillians are producing a " straw man " apology, apart from their own, to then tear down, especially since R.C. Sproul has passed. Could van Tillians be, in fact, attempting an " apologetics coup" and attempting to establish the " Van Til method " as the only Biblically and Reformed authorized method of Apologetics? Someone please tell me I'm wrong.
Light Of The Word commonality doesn’t mean adopting the unbeliever’s espoused foundation for knowledge. We seek commonality and Apologetic discussion, (for if there was none, discussion of any sort is unintelligible) as Van Til has said, “the unbeliever can count, he just can’t account for counting.” Why can he count? Because he knows God in his heart even though he suppresses that Knowledge. He can’t account for that knowledge however, since in his suppression of the truth, he has decided to come up with an alternative basis to knowledge.
As far as Contentment goes, the answer is two fold. In one sense yes, because Van Til never rejected employing evidences and the Classical Proofs, just insisted that they be formulated in a way that was true to the Christian understanding of reality. In this sense the answer that Van Tilian’s want to take over Apologetics, the answer is yes for the sake of all Apologetics having a Christian worldview and all facts are interpreted within a Christian framework of reality. Presuppositional Apologetics deals with issues at such a deep Epistemological level, that to deal with Presuppositions (foundational assumptions that guide one’s worldview) your going far beyond the realm of evidences and standard arguments. Indeed your dealing with one’s ultimate authority and standard in the knowing process. Bahnsen in particular, is concerned that if you argue about evidences without a Christian framework of reality, you will be adopting the unbelievers worldview and will run into problems if he is philosophically sophisticated. Here’s an example he likes to use. Say you prove using evidences Jesus rose from the dead, that unbeliever doesn’t have to accept that he is God. He could just say, ‘wow, strange things happen in this world, and there must be a naturalistic explanation for it.’ Van Til doesn’t want to leave the unbeliever thinking that he has a place to stand intellectually apart from God and scripture. He says that the unbeliever is living in rebellion against God, and while denying him, still lives in God’s world in which all things point to God and reveal him. So in one sense we approve of the use of classical and evidential approaches, so long as they using a Christian framework for understanding reality and in which scripture is our foundation for how we can account for our knowledge and interpretation of the world. But if those approaches are assuming unbelievers way of knowing (so everything is only naturalistic, materialistic, agnostic, etc.) then we are left in two ways of seeing things without effective Dialoge, or worse, the unbeliever could be right and we could be wrong. But the Bible is clear that all unbelief is foolishness and God has been clearly revealed, due to this, we are to honor Christ as Lord of our hearts, mind, and all that we are. In other words, we are commanded to “Let God be true, and Everyman be a liar.” Hope that adds some clarity.
Oliphint is such a weak thinker. James Anderson is better
Anderson is weaker in his Van Tilianism, though.
seriously . .....tho. I never thought and elephant would challenge Bahnsen....and I have too much to think about ...thanks for thought out clarification.....
Since Van Til was a modalist on the trinity, it follows that your assertion that Van Til's view of the trinity informed his apologetics shows that Van Til was inherently contradictory. Van Til said that God is both one Person and three Persons.
Charlie Ray again. Not what van til meant.
@Russell Peacock Here: "These titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not different names of the same person in different relations, but of different persons." -Van Til, _An_ _Introduction_ _to_ _Systematic_ _Theology_ , ch. 17, sec. C
Too bad Oliphint is weak on ethics. #Theonomy
All Van Tilians are not equal. Some are worse than others. But all Van Tilians are irrationalists.
Clarkians rule
@@rorshakks Is the fact that 'Clarkians rule' found in the propositional content of Scripture or directly deducible from it?